Appeal No. 2005-2731 9
Application No. 10/656,040
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kulakowski in view of Stefansky and Kim, we have
additionally reviewed the Kim patent, but find nothing therein which addresses the
deficiencies in the basic combination of Kulakowski and Stefansky noted above. For that
reason, the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
will likewise not be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007