Appeal No. 2003-2172
Application No. 09/644,793
together. It is for this reason that this obviousness rejection
cannot be sustained.
The second rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saderholm in view
of Hirai and Gray.
Claims 5 and 6 depend from independent claim 1, which latter
claim was discussed above. It is quite apparent to this panel of
the Board that the Gray patent does not overcome the deficiency
of the Saderholm and Hirai patents as addressed, supra. Thus,
the rejection of claims 5 and 6 cannot be sustained.
The third rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saderholm in view of Hirai.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007