Appeal No. 96-0811
Application No. 08/023,955
1. Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the Bigg’s publication in view
of the Winn-Dixie publication.
2. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the references applied in the
rejection of claims 1-10 above and further in view of the
Krebs patent.
3. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the references applied in the
rejection of claims 1-10 above and further in view of the
Haynes patent.
Reference is made to the final office action (Paper No.
9, mailed September 30, 1994) for details of these rejections.
As noted from the examiner’s answer, the examiner has not
supplied us with the publication dates for the Bigg’s and
Winn-Dixie publications. These references were furnished to
the examiner by appellants during prosecution of this
application. Appellants stated during prosecution that the
publication dates for these references were not known to them.
As a result, we issued an order under 37 CFR § 1.196(d), to
obtain further information regarding the status of these
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007