Appeal No. 1997-2164
Application No. 08/277,468
Claims 1 through 4, 9, 12 through 16, 18 and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Mizuhara and Oeschger.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Guillotin and Oeschger.
Claims 6 through 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuhara in view of Oeschger
and Guillotin.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mizuhara in view of Oeschger and Bowsky.
Claim 11, as presented in the amendment after final
rejection under 37 CFR § 1.116, stands rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuhara and Oeschger. 1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
1This rejection is a “new ground of rejection” made in
the July 23, 1996 Examiner’s answer. The Examiner asserts
that the rejection is necessitated by the amendment under 37
CFR § 1.116 dated November 2, 1995, which was entered into the
file by the advisory action dated November 16, 1995.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007