Appeal No. 1999-0403
Application 08/804,095
(German)
The following rejections are before us for review:
a) claim 7, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being
anticipated by Hoenstine;
b) claims 7 and 11, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Lund in view of Reinhardt;
c) claims 8 and 12, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Lund in view of Reinhardt, and further
in view of Hofmann; and
d) claims 9 and 10, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over Lund in view of Reinhardt and Hofmann,
and further in view of Hoenstine.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 9, mailed July 23, 1998).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 8, filed June 9, 1998).
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant requests
(brief, page 11) “a ruling from the Board of Appeals as to the
rights of the applicant and/or the applicant’s representative
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007