Appeal No. 1997-0664
Application No. 08/280,945
Holley et al. (Holley) 4,086,321 Apr. 25,
1978
Burton 4,842,834 Jun. 27,
1989
Fellows et al. (Fellows) 5,098,680 Mar.
24, 1992
The grounds of rejection presented for our review in this
appeal are as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 through 11, 13 through 16, 21 through
27, and 32 through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Holley in view of Burton and Jackson.2
Claims 5, 6, 17, 18, 28, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Holley in view of Burton
and Jackson, and further in view of Michels.
Claims 7, 8, 19, 20, 30, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Holley in view of Burton,
Jackson, and Michels, and further in view of Fellows.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
the specification, the claims, and all of the arguments
advanced by the examiner and the appellants, for which we
refer to the examiner’s answer and the appeal brief,
respectively. Notwithstanding the examiner’s exceptionally
2The statement of rejection on page 3 of the answer
includes claims 2 and 12. However, these claims were canceled
in the amendment filed March 31, 1995 (Paper No. 6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007