Appeal No. 95-2889 Page 3
Application No. 07/525,231
35 U.S.C. § 112[2] as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellants regard as
their invention (Paper No. 17 (Ex. Ans.) at 3).
The examiner rejected claims 1-6, 9-13, 15-22, 25-29, 31,
and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as having been obvious in view of
the following references (Paper No. 17 at 3):
Suzuki 4,747,685 31 May
1988
Saunders et al. (Saunders) 4,599,307 8 July
1986
Claims 7-8, 23, and 24 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as having been obvious over Suzuki, Saunders, and the
following reference (Paper No. 17 at 4):
Rose et al. (Rose) 4,677,061 30 June
1987
The examiner rejected claims 14 and 30 as having been
obvious over Suzuki, Saunders, and the following reference
(Paper No. 17 at 5):
Schwartz 4,828,984 9 May
1989
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007