Appeal No. 95-3270
Application 08/080,689
Claims 1 through 5, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27
through 29, 37 through 40, 46, 48, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, and 62
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Johnson in view of Toyoda.
Claims 6 through 10, 14, 15, 30, 41 through 45, 49, 50,
and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Johnson in view of Toyoda, as applied to claims 1, 13, 18,
21, 37, 48 and 53 above, further in view of Bennett.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 26), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 25
and 27).2
OPINION
2In Paper No. 30, the examiner indicated that the reply
brief dated March 2, 1995 was entered. However, it is not clear
if the examiner also intended to indicate entry of the “EVIDENCE
OF NONOBVIOUSNESS” also filed on March 2, 1995. Since we have
reversed the rejections of appellants’ claims, infra, the content
of this latter submission would not be of consequence in this
appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007