Appeal No. 1998-2204
Application No. 08/470,432
An additional reference of record relied on by this panel of the Board is:3
Horton et al. (Horton) 5,159,776 Nov. 3, 1992
(filed Jul. 24, 1990)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Barnett.
Claims 16, 18 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Saita in view of Cranston.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Saita in
view of Cranston and Viveiros.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 15) and the answer (Paper No. 16) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
This reference was cited by the examiner in Paper No. 6 and a copy is of record in the application file.3
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007