Ex parte URAM - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-0187                                                        
          Application No. 08/247,518                                                  


          Davis et al.   3,889,071                     Jun. 10, 1975                  
          (Davis)                                                                     
          Nakamura et al.         4,156,051            May  22, 1979                  
          (Nakamura)                                                                  
          Sims                                         4,220,079                      
               Sep.  2, 1980                                                          
          Matsuhisa et al.        4,713,206            Dec. 15, 1987                  
          (Matsuhisa)                                                                 
          Sterzel et al.          4,908,172            Mar. 13, 1990                  
          (Sterzel)                                                                   
          The appealed claims stand finally rejected under 35                         
          U.S.C.                                                                      
          § 103(a) on the following grounds:                                          
          (1) Claims 8 through 10, 12 through 14, 39 and 40,                          
          unpatentable over Matsuhisa or Sterzel in view of Sims and                  
          Kliegel;                                                                    
          (2) Claim 11, unpatentable over Matsuhisa or Sterzel in view                
          of Sims, Kliegel and Howatt; and                                            
          (3) Claims 15, 28 through 32 and 35 through 37, unpatentable                
          over Nakamura in view of Davis.                                             
          The full text of the examiner's rejections and responses                    
          to the arguments presented by the appellant appears in the                  
          answer (Paper No. 35, mailed May 29, 1997), while the complete              
          statement of the appellant’s arguments can be found in the                  



                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007