Ex parte NASVIK et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-0635                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/375,183                                                  


               Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                 
          unpatentable over Scott (945) or Scott (527) taken together                 
          with either Di Giacomo or Ward, and further in view of                      
          Urschel.                                                                    


               Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                 
          unpatentable over any one of Scott (527), Scott (945) and                   
          Urschel taken together with Ward.                                           


               Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                 
          being unpatentable over the applied art as applied to claim 4               
          in the rejections set forth above, and further in view of                   
          Rice.                                                                       
               Claims 5, 7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103                
          as being unpatentable over the applied art as applied to claim              
          4 in the rejections set forth above, and further in view of                 
          Ford.                                                                       


               Claims 4 to 8 and 11 stand rejected under the judicially               
          created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1 to 12 of                 
          Nasvik in view of Di Giacomo and Scott (945).                               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007