Appeal No. 1996-0485 Page 5
Application No. 08/139,456
Besides admitted prior art (Admission), the references
relied on by the patent examiner in rejecting the claims
follow:
Cook et al. (Cook) 4,897,806 Jan. 30,
1990
Sanders 4,991,122 Feb. 5,
1991
Deacon et al. (Deacon) 5,119,186 June 2,
1992.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Admission in view of Deacon.
Claims 18-20 and 22-25 stand rejected under § 103 as obvious
over Admission in view of Deacon further in view of Sanders.
Claims 5, 11, and 21 stand rejected under § 103 as obvious
over Admission in view of Deacon further in view of Cook.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellant or examiner
in toto, we refer the reader to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections and evidence
advanced by the examiner. We also considered the arguments of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007