Appeal No. 2003-1349 Page 12
Application No. 09/768,969
applied in the rejection of dependent claim 16 but find nothing therein which makes up
for the deficiencies of Latzke and Bulzomi discussed above. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner to reject claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9 to 13 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bulzomi in view of Oatman or Latzke
is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bulzomi in view of Oatman or Latzke as applied to claims 9 to
13 and 15 above, and further in view of Terry is affirmed; the decision of the examiner
to reject claims 9 to 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Latzke in view Bulzomi is reversed; and the decision of the examiner to reject claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Latzke in view Bulzomi as applied to
claims 9 to 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Terry is reversed. For reasons
explained infra, we have denominated our affirmance a new ground of rejection under
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Since at least one rejection of each of the appealed claims has been affirmed,
the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007