Appeal No. 1997-3678
Application No. 08/485,161
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9, and 34 through 36 stand 2
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Reeber in view of Chu, and vice versa, and the Marto and
Lepere article and, optionally, the Hesketh dissertation.
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9, and 34 through 36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
Marto and Lepere article (aged surfaces C and D in Figures 6
through 8).
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellant appears in the answer
2We have corrected the claims specified in the rejection
to cover the pending claims obviously intended to be under
rejection, consistent with appellant's understanding (amended
brief, page 7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007