Appeal No. 1999-1065
Application No. 08/754,379
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Roth 3,269,489 Aug. 30,
1966
Chin et al. (Chin) 4,276,969 Jul. 07,
1981
Everett 4,611,692 Sep. 16,
1986
Claims 21 through 24, 30 and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Everett.1
Claims 25 through 27 and 32 through 34 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Everett in view
of Roth or Chin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11) for
the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
1Claims 30 and 31 are duplicates of claims 22 and 23,
respectively, because claims 30 and 31 were amended to depend
on claim 21 in the amendment of June 30, 1997 (Paper No. 6).
In the event that these claims are held to be allowable, see
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 706.03(k)(7th
ed., rev. 1, Feb. 2000).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007