Appeal No. 2005-2211 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/715,002
called for in claims 16 and 21. As also discussed above, the examiner's additional
application of Sturrus, Hamaya and Glance fails to remedy this deficiency.
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5-8
and 16-21 as being anticipated by Scrivo, the rejection of claims 9 and 11-14 as being
unpatentable over Scrivo in view of Sturrus, the rejection of claim 4 as being anticipated
by or unpatentable over Scrivo, the rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over
Scrivo, the rejection of claims 2 and 10 as being unpatentable over Scrivo or Scrivo in
view of Sturrus and further in view of Hamaya or the rejection of claims 22, 23, 25 and
26 as being unpatentable over Scrivo or Scrivo in view of Sturrus further in view of
Glance.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejection of claims 15 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is affirmed. All other rejections are reversed. The examiner's decision is
AFFIRMED-IN-PART.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007