Appeal No. 2002-2218
Application 09/322,698
In view of the foregoing, even if we were to conclude that
the teachings and suggestions of Goldring and Mohan would have
been properly combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is clear that
the subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on
appeal would not have been met. Apparatus claim 12 and article
of manufacture claim 23 reflect in a corresponding manner the
subject matter of representative claim 1 on appeal. Thus, the
rejection of each of them is reversed as is their respective
dependent claims rejected in the first stated rejection. Since
McCall is not argued by the examiner to cure the noted defects
with respect to Goldring and Mohan, the separately stated
rejection of other dependent claims must be reversed as well.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007