Ex parte MOONEY et al. - Page 3




                Appeal No. 95-0057                                                                                                            
                Application 07/775,114                                                                                                        


                Harris                        4,776,003          Oct. 04, 1988                                                                
                D’Avello et al. (D’Avello)    4,860,336          Aug. 22, 1989                                                                
                Kemppi                        4,868,846          Sep. 19, 1989                                                                
                Fuwa (Japanese Kokai)         61-244164          Oct. 30, 1986                                                                
                Iwanami (Japanese Kokai)      62-286360          Dec. 12, 1987                                                                
                                                                                                                                             



                Claims 1, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                                                                     
                being unpatentable over the teachings of Kemppi, D’Avello or                                                                  
                Harris in view of Fuwa.   Claims 6-11 stand rejected under 352                                                                                      
                U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over D’Avello in view of Fuwa.                                                             
                Finally, claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                                                             
                being unpatentable over D’Avello in view of Fuwa and further in                                                               
                view of Iwanami.                                                                                                              
                Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the                                                                         
                examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the                                                              
                respective details thereof.                                                                                                   
                OPINION                                                                                                                       
                We have carefully considered the subject matter on                                                                            
                appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence                                                              


                         2Our understanding of Fuwa and Iwanami is based on                                                                   
                translations provided by the Scientific and Technical Information                                                             
                Center of the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.  These                                                                       
                translations were previously provided to appellants by the                                                                    
                examiner.                                                                                                                     
                                                                      3                                                                       





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007