Appeal No. 95-4838
Application No. 08/131,643
Yeh 4,066,526 Jan. 3,
1978
Howard 4,303,420 Dec. 1,
1981
Diachuk 4,350,504 Sep. 21,
1982
Kito et al. (Kito) 4,650,647 Mar. 17,
1987
Buelt et al. (Buelt) 4,957,393 Sep. 13,
1990
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 8, 10 through 16 and 18 through 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
admitted prior art figure 1 in view of Yeh or Kito. Claims 9,
17 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the admitted prior art figure 1 in view of Yeh or Kito
and further in view of Howard, Diachuk or Buelt.
OPINION
Appellants in their Brief, Page 5, state that claims 1
through 22 stand separately and at least minimally present
reasons in their argument as to why appellants consider the
rejected claims to be separately patentable. Accordingly, we
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007