Appeal No. 2003-1278 Page 6
Application No. 09/577,701
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8
We have also reviewed the references to Spelha, Persyk and Yamakawa
additionally applied in the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiencies of discussed above regarding claims 1, 4 and 6.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is also reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007