Appeal No. 1996-1914
Application No. 08/159,739
The following references of record are relied upon by the
examiner:
Seidel 3,770,623 Nov. 6,
1973
Bogart 4,999,103 Mar. 12,
1991 Northrop 5,078,882 Jan.
7, 1992
The following rejections are before us for consideration:2
(1) Claims 1, 3, 11-15 and 18-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Northrop.
(2) Claims 7-10 and 24-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious from Northrop.
(3) Claims 5-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious from Northrop in view of Seidel.
(4) Claims 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious from Northrop in view of Bogart.
Based on the record before us, we agree with appellants
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
2We note that claim 18 was additionally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, in the final rejection
(Paper No. 7). Since there is no reference to the 35 U.S.C. §
112 rejection in the examiner's answer, we presume that
rejection has been withdrawn by the examiner as having been
obviated by an amendment (Paper No. 11) after final rejection
which, according to the examiner's answer (page 1), has been
entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007