Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
2. We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the teaching of
Spencer or Gruhn.
3. We affirm the rejection of Claims 2-4 and 10 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the teaching of
McKay (‘749) or McKay (‘363), with or without the teaching of
Spencer or Gruhn.
4. We affirm the rejection of Claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the teaching of
McKay (‘363), with or without the teaching Spencer or Gruhn.
5. We reverse the rejection of Claims 8 and 9 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined
teachings of McKay (‘749) and Spencer or Gruhn.
6. We affirm the rejection of Claim 5 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the teaching of McKay (‘363),
with or without the teaching of Bradley or Aharoni.
7. We affirm the rejection of Claims 5-7 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined
teachings of McKay (‘363) and Bradley or Aharoni.
8. We affirm the rejection of Claims 5-7 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the teaching of
Bradley.
- 25 -
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007