Appeal No. 95-4526
Application 08/200,251
60-63, unpatentable over Sukiennik in view of Nosaki;
(b) claims 8 and 9, unpatentable over Sukiennik in view
of Nosaki and further in view of Matthews;
(c) claims 11-16, 18, 39, 49 and 57, unpatentable over
Sukiennik in view of Nosaki and further in view of Nishino;
and
(d) claims 30, 45 and 54, unpatentable over Sukiennik in
view of Nosaki and further in view of Sneyd.
The examiner's rationale in rejecting the claims is set
forth in the final rejection and the answer.
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are found in the
brief and the reply brief. Appellants also rely on the
affidavit of Mark L. Kaspar under 35 U.S.C. § 132 (Paper No.
7, submitted August 18, 1994) in support of their position.
The Rejection based on Sukiennik and Nosaki
(rejection (a))
(1) Claims 1-3, 25, 26, 28-30, 37, 42-48, 52-56 and 60-63.
Considering the examiner’s foundation combination of
Sukiennik and Nosaki, both of which are mentioned on page 2 of
appellants’ specification in the “Background of the Invention”
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007