Appeal 2006-2448
Application 10/700,425
The Appellant does not present a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of dependent claim 13 rejected over Guill in view of Hall (Br. 7).
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
rejections over Guill and over Guill in view of Hall.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013