Appeal No. 1997-0594
Application No. 08/448,134
Claims 1, 11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Unterberger et al. and Bartel
et al.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Unterberger et al., Bartel et al. and
Rau.
Claims 1, 11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Unterberger et al., Bartel et
al., Blondeau and Piety.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Unterberger et al., Bartel et al.,
Blondeau, Piety and Rau.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and
the Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for 2
Appellants submitted a terminal disclaimer on October 15, 1996
which was accepted by the Examiner in the communication dated
April 9, 1999. Accordingly, the rejection based upon
obviousness type double patenting is not before us.
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on July 18, 1996.
Appellants filed a reply brief on October 11, 1996. On
November 5, 1996 the Examiner mailed a communication stating
that the reply brief has been entered and considered. On
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007