Ex Parte Gelardi - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2004-1302                                                        
          Application No. 09/789,757                                                  

               The references applied by the examiner in the final                    
          rejection are:                                                              
          Corey et al. (Corey)         3,107,783              Oct. 22, 1963           
          Dallmer                      5,779,034              Jul. 14, 1998           
          Blanco                       5,839,575              Nov. 24, 1998           
          Wynalda, Jr. (Wynalda)       5,960,949              Oct.  5, 1999           
          Gelardi et al. (Gelardi)     6,059,102              May   9, 2000           
          Cheung                       6,227,362              May   8, 2001           
               The following rejections are before us for review:                     
               (1) claims 9 and 15, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first             
          paragraph;                                                                  
               (2) claims 1, 3-6, 15, 18, 20, 21, 26, 29-32, 35, 36, 44,              
          45, 47-51, 55-58 and 62-64, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as            
          being anticipated by Cheung;3                                               
               (3) claims 1-7, 15, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 34-37, 39 and              
          44-46, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by            
          Gelardi;                                                                    
               (4) claims 16, 19, 40 and 43, rejected under 35 U.S.C.                 
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheung or Gelardi;                      
               (5) claims 1-5, 12-21, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 36 and 45,                  
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                
          Blanco in view of Wynalda;                                                  

               3In the examiner’s answer (page 4), claims 33 and 34 appear            
          to have been inadvertently included in this rejection.                      
                                          3                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007