Appeal No. 2005-0742
Application No. 10/274,579
Because we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 20, we do not sustain the rejection of the remaining
dependent claims in the first stated rejection. Likewise, we do
not understand Akhavan, Ulug and Romanovsky to have overcome the
noted deficiencies with respect to the rejection relying on
Shasha and Tanaka. As such, the rejections of the other
dependent claims in the second through fourth separately stated
rejections are reversed as well.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007