Appeal No. 1997-3993 Page 3
Application No. 08/462,561
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Roop in view of Pammer or Barbee and
McCoy.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Roop in view of Pammer or Barbee and McCoy
as applied to claims 9 and 10 above, and further in view of
Berleue.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Barbee in view of McCoy and Roop.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Barbee in view of McCoy and Roop as applied
to claims 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Berleue.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 32,
mailed January 9, 1997) and the supplemental answer (Paper No.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007