Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dobilas,
Junghans, Sukhin and Hughes.
Claims 13 and 315 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anthony, Bendig and Takahashi
as applied to claims 1 and 28 above, and further in view of
Ballentine.
Claims 22 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anthony, Bendig and Takahashi
as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodman. 6
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
statement with regard to the above-noted rejections and
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
5 Claim 31 depends from claim 28. Since the rejection of
claim 28 includes the references to Anthony, Bendig, Takahashi,
Maehara and Sugimoto, we understand the rejection of claim 31
to also include Maehara and Sugimoto. Therefore, we understand
the rejection of claim 31 to be based on Anthony, Bendig,
Takahashi, Maehara and Sugimoto as applied to claim 28 above,
and further in view of Ballentine.
6 The 35 U.S.C. § 112(1) and 112(2) rejections as stated
in the final rejection have been withdrawn upon entry of the
amendment after final (Paper No. 15, filed October 18, 1996).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007