Appeal No. 96-0688
Application 08/105,465
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Reichert 4,014,115 Mar. 29, 1977
Evanyk 5,033,212 Jul. 23, 1991
Goldston et al. (Goldston) 5,285,586 Feb. 15, 1994
(Filing Date Jun. 26, 1992)
Bott et al. (Bott) 28 38 770 Mar. 20, 1980
(Offenlegungsschrift)
Dana III 0 121 026 Oct. 10, 1984
(Published European Application)
Claims 19 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dana III in view of Reichert or
alternatively, Reichert in view of Dana III.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claim 19 above and
further in view of Evanyk.
Claims 23 through 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claim 19
above and further in view of Bott.
Claims 19 through 29 stand additionally rejected under "the
judicially created doctrine of non-statutory double patenting" as
being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 5,285,586.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007