Appeal No. 2005-2584
Application No. 09/897,331
coupled to the phase of the first variations.” However, as stated supra with respect to
claim 4, we do not find that Maeda teaches this limitation. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, and 7 through 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Timmermans in view of Maeda.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007