Appeal No. 1997-0606
Application No. 08/169,048
The examiner relies on the following references:
Frost 4,178,476 Dec. 11, 1979
Eastmond et al. (Eastmond) 5,153,903 Oct. 06, 1992
Wohl et al. (Wohl) 5,247,700 Sep. 21, 1993
Rappaport et al. (Rappaport) 5,451,839 Sep. 19, 1995
(filed Jan. 12,
1993)
The following rejections were set forth as new grounds of
rejection in the examiner’s answer:
1. Claims 6 and 18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by the disclosure of Frost.
2. Claims 9, 10, 16 and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Frost in
view of Eastmond.
3. Claims 7, 11 and 19-28 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Frost in
view of Wohl.
4. Claim 29 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Frost in view of Wohl and
further in view of Rappaport.
Appellant was apprised of these new grounds of rejection
and given a period of two months in which to file a reply
[answer, pages 5-9 and 12]. No response to these new grounds
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007