Appeal No. 1996-1715
Application No. 08/068,592
(filed Aug. 15, 1988)
Schwartz et al. (Schwartz) 5,047,918 Sep. 10, 1991
(filed Dec. 19, 1988)
Miller 5,117,351 May 26, 1992
(filed Oct. 21, 1988)
Driscoll et al. (Driscoll) 5,142,681 Aug. 25, 1992
(effective filing date Jul. 7, 1986)
Claims 6, 7, 39, 43, 44, and 46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of
Lowry and Mathur.
Claims 6, 7, 39, 43, 44, and 46 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Driscoll in view of
Lowry and Mathur.
Claims 6, 7, 39, 43, 44, and 46 further stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz in
view of Lowry and Mathur.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 31,
mailed July 20, 1995) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 33, mailed October 20, 1995) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellant's Brief (Paper No. 30, filed May 1, 1995) and Reply
Brief (Paper No. 32, filed August 16, 1995) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007