Appeal No. 96-0089
Application No. 08/027,060
(I). Claims 1, 9, 15, 21 and 22 stand rejected as
obvious from Autio or Skaugen, each in view of Karvinen or
Weideburg.
(II). Claims 2, 3, and 10 stand rejected as obvious from
the references as applied in (I) above, further in view of
McDonald or Beachler.
(III). Claims 8, 14 and 23-25 stand rejected as obvious
from the references as applied in (I) above, further in view
of Laapotti with or without Kerttula.
(IV). Claims 1, 8-9, 14-15 and 21-25 stand rejected as
obvious from Laapotti in view of Karvinen or Weideburg.
(V). Claims 8, 14 and 23-25 stand rejected as obvious
from the references as applied in (IV) above, further in view
of Kerttula.
(VI). Claims 2, 3 and 10 stand rejected as obvious from
the references as applied in (IV) above, further in view of
McDonald or Beachler.
After having carefully considered the entire record in
light of the well-reasoned positions set forth by appellants
and by the examiner, respectively, we agree with appellants
that the appealed claims define subject matter which is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007