Appeal No. 96-2724
Application 08/343,201
Sigoloff 4,712,314 Dec. 15, 1987
Swartz 5,379,533 Jan. 10, 1995
(filed Dec. 6, 1991)
Claims 4, 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Swartz.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Swartz in view of Webb.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Swartz in view of Sigoloff or Adams.2
The full text of the examiner's rejections with regard
to claims 4 through 7 and 10 and rebuttal to the arguments
presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper No. 30,
mailed February 21, 1996). Rather that reiterate appellant's
position on the issues raised in this appeal, we make reference
to the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 29 and 32) for the
complete statement of appellant's arguments.
2The rejections of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
found in the examiner's answer, are moot in view of appellant's
withdrawal of the appeal as to those claims in Paper No. 31.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007