Appeal No. 96-1511
Application 08/063,919
e) claims 12 and 19 as being unpatentable over Wolsh in view
of Clay;
f) claims 16 and 18 as being unpatentable over Wolsh in view
of Clay, and further in view of Andre;
g) claims 16 and 17 as being unpatentable over Wolsh in view
of Clay, and further in view of Copell;
h) claim 20 as being unpatentable over Engvall in view of
Clay;
i) claims 1, 3 through 5, 8 through 10, 12, 16, 18 and 19 as
being unpatentable over Frank in view of Andre;
j) claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 19 as
being unpatentable over Frank in view of Copell;
k) claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16 and 18 through 20
as being unpatentable over Wolsh in view of Andre; and
l) claims 1, 3 through 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 as
being unpatentable over Wolsh in view of Copell.
Reference is made to the appellant’s main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 11 and 14) and to the examiner’s main and
supplemental answers (Paper Nos. 13 and 15) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
propriety of these rejections.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007