Appeal No. 2001-0430
Application No. 08/697,699
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kocmanek et al. (Kocmanek) 5,252,520 Oct. 12, 1993
Cain et al (Cain) 5,286,518 Feb. 15, 1994
Machida et al. (Machida) 5,376,590 Dec. 27, 1994
Jain et al. (Jain) 5,403,780 Apr. 4, 1995
Dawson 5,503,882 Apr. 2, 1996
Ngo 5,736,423 Apr. 7, 1998
(filed Nov. 16, 1995)
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 8 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dawson in view of Kocmanek and Cain.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 10 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dawson in view of either Machida or Jain.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 10 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dawson in view of Kocmanek and Cain and either one of Machida or Jain.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 10 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dawson in view of either Machida or Jain and in further view of Ngo.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 10 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dawson in view of Kocmanek and Cain and either one of Machida or Jain
and in further view of Ngo.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 29 and 31) and the answer (paper number
30) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007