Appeal No. 1997-1018
Application No. 08/369,944
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence to support the rejections under §§ 102 and 103:
Hodgson 3,645,835 Feb. 29,
1972
Cole 5,009,224 Apr. 23,
1991
Salve S.A. (Salve) 1 381 185 Jan. 22,
1975
(Published UK patent Specification)
Howes 0 194 881 Sep. 17,
1986
(Published European Patent Application)
Claims 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Howes or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Howes in view of Hodgson or Cole
(Answer, page 4). Claims 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Salve or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Salve in view of Hodgson
or Cole (Answer, page 5). We affirm the rejection of claims
21-24 under § 103 over Salve in view of Hodgson or Cole but
reverse all other rejections. Our reasoning follows.
OPINION
A. The Rejections under § 102(b)
The examiner finds that “Howes (EP) discloses the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007