Ex parte SIMMONS - Page 4




                 Appeal No. 1997-0595                                                                                     Page 4                        
                 Application No. 08/154,911                                                                                                             


                          Claims 1 to 6, 10 and 12-17  stand rejected under 353                                                                            
                 U.S.C.                                                                                                                                 
                 § 103 as being unpatentable over Ottaviano '776 in view of                                                                             
                 Engel.                                                                                                                                 


                          Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                        
                 being unpatentable over Ottaviano '776 in view of Johnson and                                                                          
                 Engel.                                                                                                                                 


                          Claims 1 to 4 and 12-17  stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.4                                                                                    
                 § 103 as being unpatentable over Ottaviano '716.                                                                                       






                          3While claim 17 was not specifically included in the                                                                          
                 statement of the rejection, we conclude that the examiner                                                                              
                 intended claim 17 to be included since claim 17 is mentioned                                                                           
                 in the body of the rejection.  Additionally, the appellant has                                                                         
                 grouped claims 13-17 to stand or fall with claim 1 with                                                                                
                 respect to this rejection (brief, p. 8).                                                                                               
                          4While claim 17 was not specifically included in the                                                                          
                 statement of the rejection, we conclude that the examiner                                                                              
                 intended claim 17 to be included since claim 17 is mentioned                                                                           
                 in the body of the rejection.  Additionally, the appellant has                                                                         
                 grouped claims 13-17 to stand or fall with claim 1 with                                                                                
                 respect to this rejection (brief, p. 9).                                                                                               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007