Appeal No. 98-0972
Application No. 08/609,550
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Haase in view of Palmer, Lloyd and
Nickerson.
Claims 11, 12 and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Haase in view of Lloyd.
Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Haase in view of Lloyd and Palmer.
The rejections are explained in Paper No. 4 (the final
rejection).2
The appellants’ arguments are set forth in the Brief.
OPINION
The Double Patenting Rejection
No terminal disclaimer has been filed, and no arguments
have been made disputing the examiner’s position with regard
to this rejection. We therefore shall sustain it.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
2A rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, also was listed in the Answer. However,
according to Paper No. 7, this rejection was overcome by the
amendment filed April 29, 1997 (Paper No. 6). We therefore
shall consider it as having been withdrawn.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007