Appeal No. 1999-0636 Page 4
Application No. 08/828,375
1. Claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 26 through 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Martinek.
2. Claims 7, 8, 10 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Martinek in view of La Mell.
3. Claims 9 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Johnston in view of La Mell.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 19) and the
answer (Paper No. 22) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007