Appeal No. 2002-2322
Application 09/094,314
the claimed means for creating on the operation of Hapner to be
unreasonable.
Since we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection with
respect to independent claims 7 and 13 which contain recitations
similar to those of claim 1. We also do not sustain the
rejection with respect to claims 2-6 and 8-12 which depend from
claims 1 and 7.
We now consider the rejection of claims 14-21 based on
the teachings of Hapner and Sadiq. These claims all depend from
claims 1, 7 or 13. Since Sadiq does not overcome the basic
deficiencies of Hapner discussed above, we also do not sustain
the rejection of any of claims 14-21.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007