Ex parte PECK et al. - Page 4




                 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