Appeal No. 97-3007 Page 3
Application No. 08/161650
Kittaka et al. 5,221,391 Jun. 22,
1993
(Kittaka) (filed Feb. 9,
1990)
The rejections
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Medler in view of any of Randolph or
Allen’563 or Kittaka or Hale or Fondiller.
Claims 19 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Medler in view of Randolph or
Allen’563 or Kittaka or Hale or Fondiller as applied to claims
16 above, and further in view of Burkholz.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Medler in view of any of Randolph or
Allen’563 or Kittaka or Hale or Fondiller as applied to claim
16 above, and further in view of any of Burton or Allen’292 or
Walter or Porter.2
Claims 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Medler in view of any of Randolph or
Allen’563 or Kittaka or Hale or Fondiller as applied to claim
2 The examiner’s answer has included claim 17 in several of the rejections,
however, claim 17 has been canceled. As such, we will not address the examiner’s
rejections of claim 17.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007