Appeal No. 95-4246
Application 08/201,052
1988
Johnson 4,850,352 Jul. 25,
1989
Vassiliadis et al. (Vassiliadis) 4,940,411 Jul. 10,
1990
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are before
us for review:
(a) claims 18-23 and 31-35, rejected as being
unpatentable over Sharon in view of McFee ; 2
(b) claims 24-27, rejected as being unpatentable over
Sharon in view of McFee, and further in view of Johnson;
(c) claim 28, rejected as being unpatentable over Sharon
in view of McFee, and further in view of Hughes; and
(d) claims 29 and 30 , rejected as being unpatentable over3
Sharon in view of McFee, and further in view of Vassiliadis.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 29).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
2Both the examiner and appellants have incorrectly
denominated U. S. Patent No. 1,562,460 to McFee as “Fee”.
3Claim 30 is obviously incorrect in that it depends from
itself. For purposes of this appeal, we will consider claim
30 as depending from claim 29. This error is deserving of
correction in the event of further prosecution.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007