Appeal No. 1999-1063
Application No. 08/402,498
The following rejections are before us for review:
I) Claims 15, 16, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Cox;
II) Claims 2 through 7, 11 and 21 through 23 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Cox; and
III) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cox in view of O’Neil.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and the
responses to the arguments presented by appellant appear in
the answer (Paper No. 11, mailed February 10, 1998), while the
complete
statement of appellant's arguments can be found in the main
brief (Paper No. 10, filed September 22, 1997) and the reply
brief (Paper No. 12, filed April 10, 1998).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007