Appeal No. 96-2987
Application 08/346,060
reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which is appended
to appellant’s brief.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied
the documents listed below:
Abell et al. (Abell) 3,834,252 Sep. 14, 1974
Tuttle 4,823,650 Apr. 25, 1989
Johnson 4,982,627 Jan. 8, 1991
Zumeta 5,031,488 Jul. 16, 1991
Akazawa 5,360,073 Nov. 1, 1994
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Abell, or in the
alternative, Abell in view of Tuttle.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Abell, or in the alternative,
Abell in view of Tuttle, further in view of Zumeta or Johnson.
Claims 10 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Tuttle in view of Abell, or in the
alternative, Abell in view of Tuttle, further in view of
Akazawa.2
2This rejection reflects the correction noted in the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 12).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007