Appeal No. 2004-0177
Application 09/792,574
and 4 through 6, as being unpatentable over Reid in view of Levin
or Mitchell.
As Mayo does not cure the above noted shortcomings of Reid
in view of either Levin or Mitchell relative to the subject
matter recited in parent claim 1, we also shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 3 as
being unpatentable over Reid in view of Levin or Mitchell, and
Mayo.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007