Appeal No. 1996-4119
Application No. 08/261,406
GROUNDS OF REJECTION5
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 176 and 227 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng and Harris.
Claims 9-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bollen in view of Ng and Harris as applied to claims8 1, 2, 4, 5, 8,
179 and 2210 and further in view of Neurath and Yip.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Bollen in view of Ng, Harris, Neurath and Yip as applied to claims 9-16, 18 and 19,
and further in view of Bischoff.
We affirm.
5 We note the examiner withdrew (Answer, bridging paragraph, pages 1-2) the
rejection of claim 7, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bollen in
view of Ng and Harris (Final Rejection, Paper No.6, mailed April 4, 1995) indicating
that it would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Claim 7 is now (Answer,
page 1) “objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.” Accordingly,
we will not address claim 7 as it was indicated as allowable.
6 See supra, n.1.
7 We note that appellants refer to “[c]laims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 17 and 21” in their
“STATUS OF CLAIMS” section of the Brief (page 2). However, appellants after final
amendment (Paper No. 8, received September 25, 1995) canceled claim 21. The
reference to claim “21” should be to claim “22.” This typographical error was
corrected herein.
8 We note the following typographical error. The examiner included a reference to
claim 7 in this statement of the rejection. However, the examiner withdrew the
rejection of claim 7 (see supra, n.5). Therefore, claim 7 should not be included in
this statement of rejection. This typographical error was corrected herein.
9 See supra, n.1.
10 We note the typographical error in the examiner’s statement of the rejection
(Answer, page 7), wherein reference is made to claim “21.” Claim 21 was
canceled by appellants’ after final amendment (Paper No. 8, received September
25, 1995). The examiner should have referred to claim “22” and not claim “21”.
This typographical error was corrected herein.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007