Appeal No. 2006-1343 8
Application No. 10/121,530
a roadmap for their combination. Thus, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mack in view of Landgren and
Müller.
We have also reviewed the patent to Sjogren relied upon by the
examiner in the rejection of dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mack in view Landgren and
Müller as applied above, and further in view of Sjogren. Here
again, we agree with appellant’s assessment of the rejection on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007