Appeal No. 1997-2055
Application No. 08/175,873
Hullot 5,163,130 Nov. 10,
1992
Priven et al. (Priven) 5,327,559 Jul. 05,
1994
(filed October 23, 1990)
Haynes et al. (Haynes) 5,428,734 Jun. 27,
1995
(filed December 22, 1992)
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Haynes.
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Hullot.
Claims 4 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hullot in view of Priven.
Reference is made to the Office action (Paper No. 6,
mailed September 29, 1995), Final Rejection (Paper No. 8,
mailed April 1, 1996) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed December 20, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
Brief (Paper No. 13, filed October 15, 1996) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007