Appeal No. 95-4404
Application 07/913,121
1992).
A patent discussed by the merits panel is:
Eberle et al. (Eberle) 5,413,906 May 9, 1995
The claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1 through 7 and 14 through 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Mogensen, Holmes and Urdea.
(2) Claims 1 through 7 and 14 through 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Laquel, Holmes and Urdea.
(3) Claims 8 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mizoguchi in
view of Mogensen, Holmes and Urdea, and further in view of Goff.
(4) Claims 8 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mizoguchi in
view of Laquel, Holmes and Urdea, and further in view of Goff.
(5) Claims 14 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Konig in
view of Urdea and Holmes.
(6) Claims 8 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Konig in view
of Urdea and Holmes, and further in view of Goff.
We reverse each rejection based on Mizoguchi and affirm those based on Konig.
In addition, we raise an issue for the examiner to consider upon return of the application.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007