Appeal No. 96-3577
Application 08/419,064
Claims 40 and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Dahl ('278) in view of Schoolman ('555).
Claim 17 is 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 Staveley.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl ('278)
in view of Schoolman ('555) as applied to claim 40, further in view of Staveley.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
6
appellants, we make reference to the briefs and answer for the details thereto.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-14,17, 18, 20, 23-24, 26-28, 31, 37, and 39-45 are properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-14,17,
18, 20, 23-24, 26-28, 31, 37, and 39-45. We agree with the Examiner that claims 48 and
49 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will sustain the rejection of claims
48 and 49.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
6 The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's answer mailed April 26, 1996. (Paper
no. 13). We will refer to this as the answer. The Examiner mailed a letter dated October 16, 1997 (Paper
no. 17) indicating entry of the reply brief and that no further comment was necessary and clarifying that the
Jones reference (3,670,097) was not used in the rejection of the claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007