Appeal No. 2005-0354
Application No. 09/399,412
the examiner has shown how the combined teachings of Cook and Fourie either
teaches or fairly suggests the invention as recited in independent claim 11, and we
cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 11 and its dependent claims.
The examiner relies on the teachings of Matsuoka, Kull, and Roselli as evidence
of various claimed features in dependent claims, but we do not find that these teachings
remedy the deficiency in the base combination nor do we find that the examiner has
provided a convincing line of reasoning thereto. Therefore, we do not find that the
examiner has shown how the combined teachings of Cook and Fourie with Matsuoka,
Kull, or Roselli teach or fairly suggest the invention as recited in the respective
dependent claims, and we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007