Appeal No. 1996-0223
Application No. 07/931,563
I. Claims 10, 11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Zimmerman.
II. Claims 2, 3, 5-8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Swanson in view of Falb. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Swanson in view of Falb as applied to claims 2, 3, 5-8 and 17, and further in view of Zimmerman.
Claims 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson in view of
Falb as applied to claims 2, 3, 5-8 and 17, and further in view of Furie 1979.
III. Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 17, 23-28 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Furie ‘320 in view of Falb, Zimmerman and Furie 1979.
We REVERSE all of the examiner’s above rejections.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants’
specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 24, mailed September 9, 1994) for the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 23, filed May
19, 1994) and to the appellants’ reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed November 14, 1994) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
BACKGROUND
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007