Appeal No. 95-2950
Application No. 07/855,127
Gutierrez et al. (Gutierrez) 4,664,826 May
12, 1987
Laemmle et al. (Laemmle) 4,670,168 Jun.
2, 1987
Dohner 4,689,166 Aug. 25,
1987
Malito et al. (Malito) 4,767,554 Aug. 30,
1988
Rawlinson et al. (Rawlinson) 4,778,614 Oct.
18, 1988
Biresaw et al. (Biresaw) 4,781,848 Nov.
1, 1988
Lenack et al. (Lenack) 4,956,110 Sep. 11,
1990
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), claims 70-72, 76, 88-93 and 99
stand rejected as being anticipated by Biresaw, and claims 66-
72, 87-93 and 99 stand rejected as being anticipated by
Laemmle . 2
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 66-76 and 85-99 stand
rejected as being unpatentable over Oasterhout, Rawlinson,
Biresaw or Laemmle alone or in combination with Gutierrez,
Dohner, Murphy and Malito, and claims 94-99 stand rejected as
2For some unknown reason, each of the § 102 rejections
incongruously includes certain dependent claims but not their
parent independent claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007