Appeal No. 1999-0107
Application No. 08/700,427
c) claims 1 through 9, 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gouge ‘595 in view of Gouge ‘601;1
d) claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Edwards in view of Gouge ‘601;
e) claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gouge ‘601 in view of Edwards;
f) claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gouge ‘601 in view of Hodakowski;
g) claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gouge ‘601 in view of Gouge ‘595 and Hodakowski; and
h) claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gouge ‘601 in view of Edwards and Hodakowski.
Reference is made to the appellant’s main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 17 and 19) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
18) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
As a preliminary matter, we note that in the reply brief the
appellant questions whether certain of the above rejections were
1 In the final rejection (Paper No. 7), the examiner also
rejected claims 10, 12 and 13 on this ground. We assume that
these claims no longer stand so rejected since they were not
included in the restatement of the rejection in the examiner’s
answer (Paper No. 18). See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd.
App. 1957).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007