Appeal No. 95-4616
Application 08/200,932
THE REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the examiner to support the final rejection are:
Curtis et al. (Curtis) 4,905,638 Mar. 6, 1990
Weed 4,928,636 May 29, 1990
Japanese Patent Publication 2-61321 Mar. 1, 1990
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 105 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated
by the Japanese reference.2
Claims 10-18, 24, 26-28, 33, 34, 49-53 and 58-66 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Japanese reference.
Claims 81-83 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Curtis.3
Claims 84-89 and 93-98 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Curtis in view of Weed.4
The rejections are explained in the revised Examiner's Answer.
2The appellant cited this Japanese reference immediately prior to the final
rejection, and it was applied in a rejection made for the first time in the Examiner’s
Answer. In anticipation of its use, the appellant provided arguments regarding it in the
Brief.
3Claims 82 and 83 inadvertently were not included in the statement of rejection
as recited in the revised Answer.
4Claims 93-98 were inadvertently not included in the statement of the rejection
as recited in the Revised Answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007