<It should be noted that claims 7/8 are dependent claims in the 890 patent both referencing claim 1. Because they are dependent, I do believe they are less important. Again, IMHO and I certainly would like to see others confirm this.>

I should have added that resolution of the claim 1 rejection most likely would be helpful to the resolution of claims 7/8. That was our initial argument. The prior art does not defeat claim 1. Claims 7/8 depend on claim 1 and therefore s/b OK. My wording is not what a patent attorney would use, but I believe is to the point.

Opty