Appeal No. 97-0746
Application 08/135,883
Plumly 3,132,875 May 12, 1964
Grant 3,230,908 Jan. 25, 1966
Pfister 4,153,264 May 08, 1979
Ferrigan et al. (Ferrigan) 5,221,066 Jun. 22, 1993
The grounds of rejection are as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Pfister.
2. Claims 1 and 2 additionally stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over “Pfister (fig. 7) in
view of Pfister (fig. 1)” (answer, page 3).
3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pfister in view of Grant.
4. Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Plumly in view of Ferrigan and
Grant.
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer for details of
these rejections.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellant’s
arguments. As a result, we conclude that none of the
rejections of the appealed claims is sustainable.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007