Appeal No.97-2716
Application 08/261,772
(3) claim 2 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of
Latimer, Wolff and Hadzicki;
(4) claims 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 18 as being unpatentable
over Adams in view of Latimer, Wolff and Hull;
(5) claim 11 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of
Latimer, Wolff and Goff;
(6) claim 13 as being unpatentable over Adams, Latimer,
Wolff and Nowell;
(7) claims 15 and 16 as being unpatentable over Adams in
view of Latimer, Wolff, Hull and Hadzicki;
(8) claims 17 and 19 as being unpatentable over Adams in
view of Latimer, Wolff, Nowell and Hull;
(9) 21-23 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of
Latimer, Wolff, Hull and Hadzicki; and
(10) claim 24 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of
Latimer, Hull, Hadzicki and Nowell.
The examiner’s rejections are explained on pages 3-13 of the
Office action dated November 2, 1995 (Paper No. 6).
OPINION
Rejections (1) and (3) through (8):
Each of these rejections is bottomed on the examiner’s view
that it would have been obvious to (A) make the arrow-like
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007