Appeal No. 96-1511
Application 08/063,919
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Copell 2,161,855 Jun. 13, 1939
Frank 3,154,281 Oct. 27, 1964
Wolsh 3,228,640 Jan. 11, 1966
Andre 4,614,321 Sep. 30, 1986
Engvall 5,178,354 Jan. 12, 1993
(filed Jan. 21, 1992)
Clay 461,277 Feb. 15, 1937
(British Patent Document)
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:3
a) claims 1, 2 and 8 as being unpatentable over Engvall in
view of Andre;
b) claims 1, 2 and 7 as being unpatentable over Engvall in
view of Copell;
c) claim 11 as being unpatentable over Engvall in view of
either Andre or Copell, and further in view of Clay;
d) claim 11 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of
either Andre or Copell, and further in view of Clay;
3Some of these rejections were carried forward from the
final rejection (Paper No. 9) into the main answer (Paper No. 13)
and some were entered for the first time in the main answer.
Certain rejections made in the final rejection were not carried
forward into the main answer and are assumed to have been
withdrawn by the examiner (see Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181
(Bd. App. 1957)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007