Appeal No. 96-4152
Application 08/177,391
which appellant regards [sic, appellants regard] as the
invention" (answer, page 3).
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bloom in view of Ishida and Davis, and
further in view of either Bly or Stobbe.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bloom in view of Ishida, Davis, and
either Bly or Stobbe as applied in the rejection of claims 11
and 12, and further in view of Hammond.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bloom in view of Ishida, Davis, and either
Bly or Stobbe as applied in the rejection of claims 11 and 12,
and further in view of Stanton.
Claims 16 to 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bloom in view of Roeser, and further
in view of either Bly or Stobbe.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 13, mailed February 3, 1996).
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set forth in
the brief (Paper No. 12, filed November 18, 1994) and the
reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed April 2, 1996).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007