Appeal No. 1996-2055
Application No. 08/132,554
The following references are relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness:
1. Admissions of prior art (hereinafter referred to by the
acronym PAT) on page 1, line 11-page 2, line 13 of appellant’s
specification.
2. Dockerty et al.(Dockerty) 3,149,949 Sept. 22,
1964
3. Nordberg 3,208,839 Sept. 28,
1965
4. Mizuhashi et al.(Mizuhashi) 4,485,146 Nov. 27,
1984
5. Jenkins et al. (Jenkins) 4,828,880 May 9,
1989
6. Foster et al. (Foster) 5,073,181 Dec. 17,
1991
The rejections applied by the examiner are as follows:
I. Claims 1-8 and 11-14 stand rejected for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined disclosures of PAT,
Foster, Mizuhashi and Nordberg.
II. Claim 9 stands rejected as obvious from the basic
combination of references applied in (I) above, further in
view of Dockerty and Jenkins.
III. Claim 10 stands rejected as obvious from the basic
combination of references applied in (I) above, further in
view of Jenkins.
Based on the record before us, we agree with appellant
that the basic combination of references (PAT, Foster,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007