Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
17. Claims 1, 5, 66, 67, 71-74, 76, and 77 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gillig and
Schellinger (new ground of rejection in SEA).
18. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gillig, Stoodley , Sakanishi, and3
Schellinger (new ground of rejection in SEA).
19. Claim 47 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gillig, Yorita, and Schellinger (new
ground of rejection in SEA).
20. Claims 65, 68, 70, and 75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gillig, Schellinger, and
Emmert (new ground of rejection in SEA).
21. Claim 69 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gillig, Schellinger, Emmert, and Hong
(new ground of rejection in SEA).
The Examiner's rejection (SEA17) inadvertently omits3
mention of Stoodley, which is applied to the rejection of
claim 27 from which claim 28 depends.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007