Appeal No. 1997-2878
Application No. 08/287,505
(filed Mar. 17, 1986)
In accordance with the examiner’s answer, the only
rejections before us are as follows:
Claims 1 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dola.
Claims 1 and 29 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Dellinger.
Claims 1 and 29 stand still further rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dellinger in view of Dola.
Claims 1 and 29 are even further rejected as anticipated
(presumably under 35 U.S.C. § 102) by “many apparatuses.” The
examiner cites Berkman, Whatley and Tuohy as examples of such
“apparatuses.”
Claims 2 through 28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hampton.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejections of claims 1 and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, we will not sustain these rejections as, in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007