Appeal No. 96-1082
Application 08/275,882
The examiner relies on the following references:
Boulia et al. (Boulia) 4,594,674 June 10, 1986
Torres 5,001,697 Mar. 19, 1991
In the final rejection claims 10-17 were rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by a patent
granted to Rush [4,686,649]. Claims 10-17 were also rejected
under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over “Torres and Boulia
in view of Rush.” In response to the appeal brief, the
examiner withdrew the rejections based upon Rush [answer, page
2]. Claims 10-17 now stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over “Torres... and Boulia” [Id. at page
3]. Although the examiner refers to the combined teachings of
Torres and Boulia with respect to claims 16 and 17, the
examiner also reads each of claims 10-15 on Boulia and reads
each of claims 10-17 on Torres in an anticipatory manner.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007