Appeal No. 97-1143
Application 08/115,881
The following rejections are before us for review:2
(1) Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 6 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rice in view of
Covert and Borgman;
(2) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rice in view of Covert, as applied to
claim 1 above, and further in view of Berry;
(3) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rice, Covert and Borgman, as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berry;
(4) Claims 7 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rice, Covert and Borgman, as
applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shadel; and
(5) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rice, Covert, Borgman and Shadel, as
applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Berry.3
For purposes of our review, we have listed the rejections in a2
different order from that found in the final rejection.
We note that at page 3 of the Office action mailed December 7, 1995,3
the examiner inadvertently referred to claim 10 as "claim 19." The examiner's
answer correctly refers to claim 10. Also, the Office action included a
rejection of claim 11. The rejection of claim 11 is not repeated in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007