Appeal No. 96-0928
Application 08/310,971
The following references are relied upon by the examiner in
support of his rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103:
Robins 2,858,830 Nov. 4, 1958
Perrault et al. (Perrault) 4,717,378 Jan. 5, 1988
Wokalek 5,076,265 Dec. 31, 1991
Cartmell et al. (Cartmell) 5,115,801 May 26, 1992
(filed May 2, 1990)
The grounds of rejection are as follows:
1. Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 14, 16, 17 and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Cartmell.
2. Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 14, 16, 17 and 19
additionally stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cartmell in view of Perrault.
3. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cartmell in view of Perrault and Robins.
4. Claims 1 through 6 and 10 through 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wokalek.
5. Claims 1 through 6 and 10 through 15 additionally stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wokalek
6. Finally, claims 5, 14 and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellants’
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007