Ex parte MARTIN - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1999-1057                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/848,719                                                                                                             


                          The following rejections are before us for review.                                                                            


                          Claims 18 through 20, 15, and 16 stand rejected under                                                                         
                 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Tait.                                                                                       




                          Claims 2 and 5  stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) as2                                                                                                    
                 being unpatentable over Tait in view of Buyze.                                                                                         


                          Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) as being                                                                     
                 unpatentable over Tait in view of Fisher.                                                                                              


                          Claims 9, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                                          
                 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tait in view of Moore.                                                                               


                          Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) as                                                                          
                 being unpatentable over Tait in view of Stehle.                                                                                        




                          2In the answer (page 4), the inclusion of claim 4 in the                                                                      
                 statement of this rejection is clearly in error since claim 4                                                                          
                 was earlier canceled.                                                                                                                  
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007