Appeal No. 1996-0203
Application No. 08/006,414
examiner in the advisory actions (Paper Numbers 9 and 11) and
the language of claim 1 remains as set forth in the amendment
of February 3, 1994 (Paper Number 6).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5 through 7, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable from DiStefano. Claims 3
and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable from DiStefano considered with Kumar. Claims 2
and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable from DiStefano considered with Heller. Claim 9
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 from DiStefano considered with Heller and Bakhru. Claim
12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
form DiStefano considered with King. Claims 29 and 30 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable from
DiStefano considered with Ahmad.
We shall affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5
through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We shall reverse the
rejections of claims 3, 4, 12, 29 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007