Appeal No. 96-4085
Application 08/341,837
Ciolino et al. (Ciolino '314) 5,149,314 Sept. 22, 1992
Johnson et al. (Johnson) 2,075,924 Nov. 25, 1981
(British application)
Claims 2, 4, 8 through 12, 21 through 23 and 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson
in view of Ciolino.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Johnson in view of Ciolino as applied to claim
22 above, and further in view of Pruden.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Ciolino as applied
to claim 22 above, and further in view of Hull.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 18, mailed June 20, 1996) for the examiner's full reasoning
in support of the above-noted rejections and to appellants'
substitute brief (Paper No. 17, filed May 28, 1996) for
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007