Appeal No. 1998-1426
Application No. 08/315,350
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Durkop in view of Bliss and Lindquist.
Claims 4 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Durkop in view of Bliss and Gelin.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Durkop in view of Bliss and De Benedittis.
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Durkop in view of Bliss and Reese.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Durkop in view of Bliss, Reese and
Sharp.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 18, mailed September 18, 1997) and the supplemental
examiner's answer (Paper No. 22, mailed August 6, 1999) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 17, filed
1The rejections of claims 33, 34 and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are new grounds of rejection. These rejections were
entered by the examiner in his answer (Paper No. 18, mailed
September 18, 1997).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007