Appeal No. 2005-1727
Application No. 09/925,013
reservoir 9 are unsound for the reasons expressed above in
connection with the rejection of claim 1. The examiner’s
application of Smith in combination with Stief does not cure this
evidentiary deficiency.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 28 and 32, and dependent
claims 19-22, 27, 29, 30 and 33, as being unpatentable over Stief
in view of Smith.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007