well as claims 26-30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43, 44 and 48 depending therefrom, is not
sustained.
The examiner’s application of the additional teachings of Maddison and Yonkers
provides no cure for the deficiency of the combination of Davis and Yamada discussed above.
It follows that the rejections of claims 31 and 34 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of
Yamada and Maddison and claim 45 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Yamada and
Yonkers also are no t sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007