Appeal No. 1997-1604
Application No. 08/273,688
Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 16 and 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by or
alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Scanley.
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by or alternatively under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mallya.
Claims 1 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Mallya in view of Kirk-Othmer.
Finally, claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Krijnen.
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for an exposition
of the viewpoints expressed by the appellants and the examiner
concerning each of the above noted rejections.
OPINION
Our study of the arguments, evidence and issues advanced
on this appeal with respect to the rejections before us leads
to the conclusion that we can sustain only the Section 102 and
Section 103 rejections over Scanley of composition claims 12
through 14 and 18. Our reasons follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007