Appeal No. 96-2953
Application 08/258,565
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Barber et al. (Barber) 3,153,111 Oct. 13, 1964
Weyrauch 3,586,665 June 22, 1971
Muraoka et al. (Muraoka) 4,650,332 Mar. 17,
1987
Spies 4,792,678 Dec. 20, 1988
Huggins 4,964,727 Oct. 23, 1990
Ichikawa et al. (Ichikawa) 4,983,825 Jan. 8, 1991
Ikeuchi 5,030,825 Jul. 9, 1991
McMurtry et al. (McMurtry) 5,064,290 Nov. 12, 1991
Katayama 5,194,919 Mar. 16, 1993
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 26 through 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Barber.2
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Barber in view of Huggins.
Claims 10 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Weyrauch in view of Barber.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Spies in view of McMurtry.
Claims 16 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeuchi in view of Katayama
2 On page 4 of the answer the Examiner indicates that the
35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, rejection of claims 1 through 3
has been overcome.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007