Appeal No. 97-4166
Application No. 08/478,647
being anticipated by Parish, (II) reversed the rejection of
claim 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Parish, (III) reversed the rejection of claims 86, 88-90, 95
and 97-100 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
McKee, (IV) affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 54-57, 66-71,
73, 75-81, 83-86 and
88-96 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined teachings
of Hummer and McKee, (V) reversed the rejection of claims 72
and
97-100 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined
teachings Hummer and McKee, (VI) affirmed the rejection of
claims 58 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the
combined teachings of Hummer, McKee and Fluharty and (VII)
made a new rejection of claim 100 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
pursuant to our authority under the provisions of 37 CFR §
1.196(b). The request is apparently directed to our
affirmance of rejections (I), (IV) and (VI), and to the new
rejection of claim 100 (rejection (VII)). We have carefully
reconsidered our decision in light of the arguments advanced;
however, we find nothing therein to convince us that the
decision was in error except that a typographical error
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007