Interference No. 103,036
(WX 22)), in view of Kameda, U.S. Patent No. 4,421,958 (WX 7) and
Sterling, U.S. Patent No. 1,497,388 (WX 10). [WR 138 to 140]
2. Burroughs et al.’s claims 13 and 30, as amended, are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Mullersman, U. S. Patent No. 4,379,816 (WX 21) or Sterling (WX
10) in view of Kiernan (WX 22). [WR 141 to 142]
3. Burroughs et al.’s claims 16 to 18 and 20 to 22 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Kiernan (WX 22). [WR 142 to 146]
4. Burroughs et al.’s claims 19 and 23 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Kiernan
(WX 22) and Parker, U.S. Patent No. 4,006,414 (WX 11). [WR 146
and 147]
5. Burroughs et al.’s claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over prior art, i.e,
Kiernan (WX 22) modified by Iwai et al., U. S. Patent No.
4,456,798 (WX 8), Kameda (WX 7), Dulen, U.S. Patent No. 4,324,962
(WX 9) and Sterling (WX 10). [WR 147 to 155]
The party Wang et al.’s arguments in the brief and
motion no. 6 are premised on our making the following findings of
fact:
-10-
Page: Previous 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007