Appeal No. 1997-3221
Application No. 08/249,241
We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Cutting.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18,
19, 26, and 42-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Heinemann in view of Puckett, Sun, Schofield, and Grenningloh.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 24 and 27 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann in view of Puckett,
Sun, Schofield, and Grenningloh as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18,
19, 26, and 42-49 above, and further in view of Cutting.
Appeal No. 2000-1778: Reversed
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 43-45, and 49-52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann in view of Puckett and Sun.
Appeal No. 2000-1779: Affirmed-in-Part
We affirm the rejection of claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of McNamara and Sommer ‘90.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of McNamara and Sommer ‘90.
126
Page: Previous 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007