Appeal No. 96-3758
Application 08/252,832
References relied on by the Examiner
Pitchford et al. Patent No. 4,977,509 Dec. 11, 1990
(Pitchford)
Randelman et al Patent No. 5,072,380 Dec. 10, 1991
(Randelman)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 7, 10 and 12 stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pitchford.
Claims 2-4, 8, 9, 11, and 16-19 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pitchford and
Randelman.
Claims 21 and 22 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly define and
distinctly claim that subject matter which the appellants regard
as their invention.
The above-identified rejections were first made in the
examiner’s answer. All rejections outstanding in the final
Office action (Paper No. 8) were not reiterated in the examiner’s
answer and thus are presumed to have been withdrawn.
The appellants’ reply to the examiner’s answer was
accompanied by an amendment (Paper No. 15B) which evidently has
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007