Appeal No. 2006-0500
Application No. 10/094,709
view of Nakasone or Johansen. For analogous reasons we also
hereby sustain the corresponding rejection of claims 10 and
20 over the aforementioned prior art and further in view of
Schetty or the British reference, since the only arguments
directed against this rejection are those which were found to be
unpersuasive as discussed previously.
In summary, we have sustained each of the rejections
advanced on this appeal for the reasons expressed in the answer
and above.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007