Appeal No. 1998-2556
Application 08/571,044
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Grotz.
3. Claims 16, 17, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Grotz
taken alone.
4. Claims 3, 11, 13, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Grotz
in view of Zdepski.
5. Claims 6 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Grotz in view
of Stott.
6. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Grotz in view of
Ishii.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007