Appeal No. 97-2116
Application 07/789,802
(h) claims 17 and 18, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Cvacho ‘423,
Roales, Cvacho ‘927 and Nixon as applied in rejection (g), and
further in view of Sasaki;
(i) claim 25, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being
anticipated by Heckman;
(j) claim 25, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Heckman in view of Roales; and
(k) claim 25, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over Roales in view of Heckman.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 52, mailed August 16, 1996) and the supplemental
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 54, mailed November 14, 1996).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 51, filed June 14, 1996) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 53, filed October 16, 1996).
Rejections (a) and (b)
Considering first the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and
8 as being anticipated by Roales, independent claim 1 requires
that the thermoplastic sleeve that surrounds at least a
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007