Appeal No. 1998-1610
Application No. 08/551,319
07, 1994
(Hargest)
Claims 1, 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Spann.2
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Spann.3
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Spann in view of Saviez.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Spann in view of Hargest.
Claims 8 through 12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn in view of Spann.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
2We note the following errors in claim 1 (line numbers refer to the
claim as it appears in the "Appendix"): line 1, "infants" should read --
infant's--, and line 16, "passageways" should read --passageway--.
3As a result of an apparent typographical error in Amendment A, filed
October 28, 1996 (Paper No. 5), the words "as in claim 1" in original claim 5
were omitted. For purposes of our review, we construe claim 5 as being
dependent on claim 1. Correction of claim 5 in Paper No. 5 is in order upon
return of this application to the jurisdiction of the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007