Appeal No. 98-1019
Application 08/500,782
Dahm 2,082,553 Aug. 24, 1981
(British Patent Document)
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are before
us
for review:3
(1) claims 1, 3, 5 to 8, 16, and 26, unpatentable over Beck
in view of Baumgartner and Cabot;
(2) claims 17, 18, and 21, unpatentable over Beck in view of
Baumgartner and Cabot, and further in view of Gueret and
Guerret;
(3) claim 4, unpatentable over Beck in view of Baumgartner
and Cabot, and further in view of Plunkett;
(4) claims 9 to 12, unpatentable over Beck in view of
Baumgartner and Cabot, and further in view of Higgins and
Pessels; and
(5) claims 13 and 14, unpatentable over Beck in view of
Baumgartner and Cabot, and further in view of Dahm.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
3In the final rejection, claim 26 was also rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
In that the answer does not contain a restatement of this
rejection, we assume it to have been withdrawn by the
examiner. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App.
1957).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007