Appeal No. 97-0032
Application No. 08/095,295
Claims 21, 22, 24 through 28, 30, 33 and 36 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Warren in view
of Connell, Worrall and Touzani.2
Claims 23 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the prior art applied to claims 22 and 28
above, and further in view of Gershman.
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Warren in view of Connell, Worrall,
Touzani and Gershman.
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Warren in view of Worrall and Touzani.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Warren in view of Connell, Worrall and Touzani.
2We note that the examiner failed to include Worrall in the
statement of this rejection. However, appellants were aware that
the examiner applied Worrall in the body of this rejection. See
page 6, last line through page 7, line 5, of the brief.
Accordingly, we will treat Worrall as being included in the
statement of this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007