Appeal No. 1995-4903
Application No. 07/926,016
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Vinson and
Ploger (I-II), combined in view of Irani, Parran, Gaffar and
further in view of Henkel and Kanebo is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and
16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over de
Vries and Hayes,(I-II) is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and
16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated de
Vries and Hayes,(I-II) is reversed.
However, because our rationale for affirming each of the
grounds of rejection under § 103 materially differs from that
of the examiner as we have set forth above, we have designated
our affirmance as involving a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR 1.196(b).
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
37 CFR
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007