Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
Sugimoto 4,135,670 Jan. 23, 1979
Ballentine 4,135,875 Jan. 23, 1979
Maehara et al. (Maehara) 4,465,234 Aug. 14, 1984
Berger et al. (Berger ‘708) 4,723,708 Feb. 9, 1988
Bendig et al. (Bendig) 4,796,807 Jan. 10, 1989
Anthony 4,815,661 Mar. 28, 1989
Takahashi et al. (Takahashi) 4,850,534 July 25, 1989
Berger et al. (Berger ‘067) 4,978,067 Dec. 18, 1990
Ross et al. (Ross)2 5,152,456 Oct. 6, 1992
Goodman et al. (Goodman) 5,404,871 Apr. 11, 1995
(filed Mar. 5, 1991)
Swiss Patent (Junghans) 244,781 June 2, 1947
Soviet Patent (Dobilas) 816,471 Mar. 30, 1981
WIPO Patent (Hughes) 85/02346 June 6, 1985
Soviet Patent (Sukhin) 1,477,420 May 7, 1989
Claims 1 and 203 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anthony in view of Bendig
and Takahashi.
2 The patent number shown for the Ross et al. patent on the
Form PTO-892 attached to Paper No. 8 is clearly erroneous. The
correct patent number is 5,152,456 as shown above.
3 On page 4 of the answer, the examiner set forth rejec-
tions directed only to the independent claims under the heading
“Grounds of Rejection.” It is clear to us from the record that
the examiner intended to reject all of the claims as in the final
rejection since none of the rejections of the dependent claims
has been withdrawn subsequent to the final rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007