Appeal No. 96-1415
Application No. 08/088,625
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows : 2
(1) Claims 1 to 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 24, 25, 41 to 45,
54 to 56, 63 and 67, anticipated by Gilman ‘362 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(e), or unpatentable over Gilman ‘362 in view of Sims,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(2) Claims 1 to 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 24, 25, 41 to 43, 54
to 56 and 63, unpatentable over Sims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(3) Claims 23, 33 and 60 to 62, unpatentable over Gilman ‘362
in view of Sims and Gilman ‘001, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(4) Claims 46, 68 and 69, unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Gilman ‘362 alone, or in view of Sims . 3
We have fully considered the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellants’ brief and reply brief, and
2In an Advisory Action dated February 23, 1995 (Paper
No. 30), the examiner stated that the amendment (response)
filed January 17, 1995, overcame a rejection of claim 54 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Also, in a letter dated
November 27, 1995 (Paper No. 39), the examiner indicated that
in view of the terminal disclaimer filed June 22, 1995, a
double patenting rejection of claims 1 to 4, 7, 8, 12, 16, 17,
23 to 25, 33, 41, 42, 54, 55 and 60 to 63 was withdrawn.
3This was a new ground of rejection made in the
examiner’s answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007