Appeal No. 1999-0046
Application No. 08/442,103
(b) claims 44, 47, 58 and 60, unpatentable over Meijburg
in view of AP, and further in view of Hagemeister;
(c) claims 45, 46, 58 and 59, unpatentable over Meijburg
in view of AP, and further in view of Singh;
(d) claims 50 and 68-72, unpatentable over Meijburg in
view of AP, and further in view of Cox;
(e) claims 53 and 55, unpatentable over Meijburg in view
of AP, and further in view of Jenkins;
(f) claims 56 and 57, unpatentable over Meijburg in view
of AP, and further in view of Thunes;
(g) claim 61, unpatentable over Meijburg in view of AP,
and further in view of Trage; and
(h) claims 62 and 63, unpatentable over Meijburg in view
of AP, and further in view of Plaschkes.
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 12 and 15) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
14) for the respective positions of appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.3
3On pages 9 and 10 of the main brief, appellants attempt
to raise as an issue in this appeal the requirement of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007