Appeal No. 96-3404
Application 08/145,775
unpatentable over Waters in view of Martin in view of
Kiselewski.
Claims 3, 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Waters in view of Viner.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Waters in view of Leeds.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Harza.2
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Harza in view of Creter.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Harza in view of Martin, Kiselewski
and Viner.3
2In the final rejection claim 6 was rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harza. In the answer
the examiner attempted to change the statutory basis from §
103 to § 102(b) without setting forth this change as a new
ground of rejection. Such a procedure on the part of the
examiner is improper and, accordingly, the rejection stands as
set forth in the final rejection (i.e., under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Harza).
3This rejection was set forth as a new ground of
rejection in the answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007