Appeal No. 96-3577
Application 08/419,064
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Heilig ('156) 2,955,156 Oct. 04, 1960
Ricks ('856) 4,190,856 Feb. 26, 1980
Schoolman ('555) 4,559,555 Dec. 17, 1985
Dahl et al. ('278) 4,982,278 Jan. 01, 1991
Diner ('236) 5,065,236 Nov. 12, 1991
Staveley ('567) 5,093,567 Mar. 03, 1992
Kawamura ('569) 5,153,569 Oct. 06, 1992
Schoolman ('957) 5,281,957 Jan. 25, 1994
(Filed Jul. 10, 1991)
5
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-14,17, 18, 20, 23-24, 26-28, 31, 37, 39-45 and 48-49 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the Examiner's
answer, mailed April 26, 1996, (Paper No. 13). Specifically, claims 48 and 49 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman ('957).
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 18, 23, 24, 26-28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Schoolman ('957) in view of Diner ('236).
Claims 3, 13, 20, 31 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schoolman ('957) in view of Diner ('236) as applied to claim 1, further in
view of Heilig ('156).
5In the Examiner's answer, the Examiner indicated that claim 47 was allowable over the prior art
and that claims 4, 5, 9, 15,16, 21, 22, 25, 29, 30, 32-36 and 46 would be allowable if rewritten in
independent format.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007