Appeal No. 2005-1860
Application No. 09/754,890
We note that the Examiner, in rejecting the remaining
claims, in addition to Detlefs and Chan, further relies on Rickel
which neither includes any teachings that read on the disputed
claimed features nor provides any suggestion for combining the
references to overcome the deficiencies of Detlefs and Chan as
discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejections of claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21,
28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 46 over
Detlefs, Chan and Rickel.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007