Appeal No. 2002-1289
Application No. 08/972,219
The examiner relies on the following references:
Dev et al. (Dev) 5,295,244 Mar. 15, 1994
Wanderer et al. (Wanderer) 5,491,796 Feb. 13, 1996
Daly et al. (Daly) 5,748,896 May 5, 1998
(filed Dec. 27, 1995)
Mayo et al. (Mayo) 5,751,965 May 12, 1998
(filed Mar. 21, 1996)
Gish 5,768,510 Jun. 16, 1998
(filed Jul. 1, 1996)
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Daly and Gish.
Claims 3, 6, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Daly, Gish, and Mayo.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Daly,
Gish, and Dev.
Claims 5 and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Daly, Gish, and Wanderer.
Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Daly, Gish, Mayo, and Wanderer.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 17) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 23) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007