Appeal No. 95-3573
Application No. 07/839,704
Claim 57 stands rejected under the fourth paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being of improper dependent form by failing
to further limit the subject matter of previous claim 55.
Claims 31 through 33, 36, 37, 41, 45 through 55, 57 through
61, 63, 64, 68 and 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cade in view of Jenne and the Electronics
publication.
Claims 58, 59, 63, 64 and 68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cade in view of Jenne.
Claims 31 through 37, 41, 55 through 61, 63, 64, 68 and 69
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Cade in view of Jenne, the Electronics publication and Clarke.
Claims 31 through 33, 36, 37, 41 through 43, 55, 57 through
68 and 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cade in view of Jenne, the Electronics
publication and Ishitani.
Claims 31, 32, 36, 37 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cade in view of Jenne, the
Electronics publication, Schuermeyer and Harari.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007