Appeal No. 1998-1946
Application No. 08/629,991
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to
appellant’s brief.
The following references are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness in support of his
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Gleason 2,816,764 Dec. 17, 1957
Block et al. (Block) 3,881,729 May 6, 1975
Walker 4,335,537 Jun. 22, 1982
Claims 13, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Block in view of Gleason, and
claims 15 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Block in view of Gleason and Walker.
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer for details of
these rejections.
With regard to the rejection of claim 13, appellant does
not appear to take issue with the examiner’s analysis of the
Block and Gleason references as set forth on pages 3 and 4 of
the answer. Instead, appellant’s main argument supporting
patentability of claim 13 is that the prior art lacks a
suggestion for combining the applied references in the manner
proposed by the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007