Appeal No. 95-0575
Application No. 07/921,645
e) claim 13 as being unpatentable over Exhibit A in view of
Bearson and Barisa, and further in view of Nye;
f) claims 14, 15 and 18 as being unpatentable over Exhibit A
in view of Nye, and further in view of Lykens, Friesen and
Cardarelli;
g) claims 16 and 17 as being unpatentable over Exhibit A in
view of Nye, Lykens, Friesen and Cardarelli, and further in view
of Bearson and Barisa;
h) claim 19 as being unpatentable over Exhibit A in view of
Nye, Lykens, Friesen and Cardarelli, and further in view of
Bottorff, Haston, Wilson, Sinner and Grable; and
i) claim 24 as being unpatentable over Exhibit A in view of
Lykens, Friesen and Cardarelli.
Reference is made to the final rejection (Paper No. 6) and
to the main and supplemental answers (Paper Nos. 11 and 18) for
the examiner’s position in support of these rejections, and to
the main and supplemental reply briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 14) for
the appellant’s position thereagainst.3
Having carefully considered the scope and content of the
applied prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the art as
3The record (Paper No. 13) indicates that the examiner has
refused entry of the appellant’s reply brief (Paper No. 12).
Thus, we have not considered the arguments advanced in the reply
brief in reviewing the merits of the examiner’s rejections.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007