Appeal No. 96-3830
Application 08/173,065
Isoe .2
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Buck in view of Potter, Benstock, and Isoe,
as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Hutchinson.
Claims 7 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Buck in view of Potter, Benstock,
and Isoe, further in view of Henry.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Buck in view of Potter, Benstock, Isoe, and
Henry, further in view of Hutchinson.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 13), while the complete statement of appellant's argument can
be found on pages 9 through 20 of the brief (Paper No. 12).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues raised
in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
In the final rejection (page 2), the present rejection, in obvious2
error, specified, claims 1-4, when claim 1 had previously been cancelled. In
the answer (page 4), the present rejection, also in obvious error, specifies
claims 2 through 5 (claim 5 being the subject of a later separate rejection)
and omits the Benstock reference in the statement of the rejection. Correct
claims 2 through 4 are set forth above, and the Benstock reference is
included.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007