Appeal No. 1998-1341
Application 08/358,792
Fraughton et al. (Fraughton) 5,153,836 Oct. 06, 1992
Sorden et al. (Sorden) 5,311,197 May 10, 1994
Bird 5,418,537 May 23, 1995
Gray et al. (Gray) 5,003,317 Mar. 26, 1991
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14 through 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28 through 34 and 36
through 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reagan,
Fraughton and Angeloni.1
Claims 5, 19 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Reagan, Fraughton, Angeloni and Bird.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Reagan, Fraughton, Angeloni and Haemmig.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Reagan, Fraughton, Angeloni and Sorden.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Reagan, Fraughton, Angeloni and Gray.
Rather then reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, reference is
2
made to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
1It is noted that claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Reagan, Fraughton,
Angeloni and Bird, in the final office action dated January 9, 1997. In the Examiner’s answer (answer),
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Reagan, Fraughton, Angeloni and also based upon
Reagan, Fraughton, Angeloni and Bird. For the purposes of appeal we will consider the rejection of claim
23 as being based upon Reagan, Fraughton, Angeloni and Bird.
2Appellant filed an appeal brief (brief) on July 29, 1997. On February 6, 1998 Appellant filed a reply
brief. On July 15, 1998 the Examiner mailed a communication stating that the reply brief had been
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007