Appeal No. 97-3671
Application 08/266,977
4. The Office action dated September 18, 1995 (Paper
No. 6) states that claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as set forth
previously with the addition of LeStrange and/or Milnes.
5. The Office action dated March 13, 1995 (Paper No. 4)
states that claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the prior art cited herewith and that
cited by applicant.
5. The Office action of March 13, 1995, included a Form
892 listing 5 references, including 2 United States patents
and 3 foreign references.
6. On June 27, 1994, the applicant filed a Form 1449
listing 9 references, including 7 United States patents and 2
domestic articles.
7. On the Form 1449, the examiner indicated that he
considered the listed references on February 22, 1995.
8. Although a total of 18 references evidently were
applied by the examiner, at one time or another, during the
prosecution history leading up to and including the final
Office action, the examiner’s answer listed and referred to
only four references Milnes, Langhans, Clark, and Pfost.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007