Appeal No. 97-2116
Application 07/789,802
(d) claim 6, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Cvacho ‘423 in view of Hoffman, Cvacho ‘927
and Nixon as applied in rejection (c), and further in view of
Roales and Potts;
(e) claims 7 and 9, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Cvacho ‘423 in view of Hoffman, Cvacho
‘927,
Nixon, Roales and Potts as applied in rejection (d), and
further in view of Conklin;3
(f) claim 20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being
anticipated by Hoffman;
(g) claims 10, 12-14, 16 and 19-24, rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of
Cvacho ‘423 and Roales, and further in view of Cvacho ‘927 and
Nixon;
3On page 7 of the answer, the examiner appears to have
inadvertently failed to include Roales and Potts in the
statement of the rejection of these claims.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007