Appeal No. 96-0948 Page 3
Application No. 08/262,400
The single reference relied upon by the examiner to
support the final rejection is:
Sud et al. (Sud) 4,811,061 Mar. 7, 1989
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10-12, 14, 15 and 22-25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sud.
Claims 5-7, 9 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Sud.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answers.2
The arguments of the appellants in opposition to the
positions taken by the examiner are set forth in the Briefs.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
2Rejections of claims 4, 9, 10, 15 24 and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, were cured by amendments
entered after the final rejection (see Paper No. 39).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007