Appeal No. 1997-1316
Application No. 08/272,147
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9 and 11 through 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hollister in view
of Tax and Messler.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hollister in view of Tax, Messler and
Hashimoto.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hollister in view of Tax, Messler, Hashimoto
and Gilbert.
Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hollister in view of Tax, Messler and
Telecemian.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hollister in view of Tax, Messler and
Franklin.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 17 is
reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007