Appeal No. 2003-0041
Application No. 09/087,528
For the rejection of claims 6, 22, 29 and 46 as being obvious over Muszynski in
view of Bazarjani and further in view of Keskitalo and the rejection of claims 7, 15, 23,
30 and 47 as being obvious over Muszynski in view of Bazarjani and further in view of
Ganesan, we note that the Examiner has relied on Bazarjani for the above limitations.
Furthermore, we find that neither Ganesan or Bazarjani teach or suggest the above
limitations. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for
the same reasons as in the above claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007