Appeal No. 97-3561
Application No. 08/352,190
1994
Shaw 5,442,720 Aug. 15,
1995
(filed Mar. 21,
1994)
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on an inadequate disclosure.
Claims
1, 9 and 17 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by the disclosures of Weverka, Kiasaleh or Lipsky.
Finally, claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner
offers Weverka, Kiasaleh or Lipsky in view of Shaw.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007