Ex parte GOULAIT - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 97-4184                                                                                                                     
                 Application No. 08/521,256                                                                                                             


                 Gomez-Acevedo                                                  5,133,112                           Jul. 28,                            
                 1992                                                                                                                                   
                 Murasaki                                                       5,361,462                           Nov.  8,                            
                 1994                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                         (filed Apr. 22, 1993)                                          


                                                               THE REJECTIONS                                                                           
                          Claims 1-5, 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                                                                        
                 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez-Acevedo in view of                                                                                
                 Murasaki.                                                                                                                              
                          Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                                                       
                 unpatentable over Gomez-Acevedo in view of Murasaki and either                                                                         
                 Aeschbach or Noel.                                                                                                                     
                          The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.2                                                                       
                          The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in                                                                     
                 the Brief and the Reply Brief.                                                                                                         


                                                                     OPINION                                                                            
                          At the outset, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.                                                                      
                 § 1.196(b), we make the following new rejection:                                                                                       



                          2A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, was                                                                      
                 withdrawn in Paper No. 21.                                                                                                             
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007