Appeal No. 1999-0611 Page 3
Application No. 08/814,272
1. Claims 1 to 3, 7 to 10, 12, 14 to 16, 20 to 23, 25, 27,
28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Fimbell.
2. Claims 1 to 3, 7 to 10, 12, 14 to 16, 20 to 23, 25, 27,
28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Norberg.
3. Claims 1 to 3, 7 to 10, 12, 14 to 16, 20 to 23, 25, 27,
28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Lewis.4
4. Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Fimbell.
5. Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Norberg.
6. Claims 4, 11, 13, 17, 24, 26 and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis.
10).
4 Viewing the record as a whole, it is apparent to us that the
examiner's omission of claim 16 in this rejection was an inadvertent error.
Accordingly, in deciding this appeal, we shall consider claim 16 to be
included in this rejection. The appellant is not prejudiced by this treatment
since the brief addresses claim 16 with regard to this rejection in the status
of claims, issues and arguments sections (pages 2, 5 and 11).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007