Appeal No. 1997-2016 Page 3
Application No. 08/196,126
Claim 9, the only method claim on appeal, is reproduced in the appendix to appellants'
brief. The copy of independent apparatus claim 10 contained in the appendix to appellants'
brief is incomplete. Therefore, a correct copy of claim 10 on appeal is appended to this
decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Hentz et al. (Hentz) 4,070,229 Jan. 24, 1978
Phillips 4,669,866 Jun. 2, 1987
Hulderman et al. (Hulderman) 5,062,149 Oct. 29, 1991
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hentz in view of Hulderman.
Claims 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hentz in
view of Hulderman, as applied above, and further in view of Phillips.
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 19 and 22) and the answer
(Paper No. 20) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to
the merits of these rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007