Appeal No. 2000-2194
Application No. 08/705,843
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Gelhard et al. (Gelhard) 4,663,952 May 12 1987
Seckinger et al. (Seckinger) 4,686,358 Aug. 11, 1987
Clarkson et al. (Clarkson) 4,712,398 Dec. 15, 1987
Larson et al. (Larson) 4,727,368 Feb. 23, 1988
Hyatt, Jr. et al. (Hyatt) 5,140,317 Aug. 18, 1992
Claims 6-12, 14, and 15 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based on an inadequate disclosure.
Claims 1-5 and 13 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hyatt taken in combination with Gelhard,
Larson, Clarkson, and Seckinger.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of
the rejections, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the obviousness rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
1 The Appeal Brief was filed December 2, 1999 (Paper No. 19). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated February 29, 2000 (Paper No. 20), a
Reply Brief was filed April 24, 2000 (Paper No. 21), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated May 25,
2000 (Paper No. 22).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007