Appeal No. 1999-1483 Page 2
Application No. 08/732,887
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Burrows 419,821 Jan. 21, 1890
Busko 1,354,166 Sep. 28, 1920
Young 2,500,333 Mar. 14, 1950
Adamski et al. (Adamski) 4,029,223 Jun. 14, 1977
Kupfert 4,846,305 Jul. 11, 1989
High et al. (High) 5,590,739 Jan. 7, 1997
(filed Nov. 1, 1994)
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 10 on the basis of Burrows and High.
(2) Claim 7 on the basis of Burrows, High and Young.
(3) Claim 8 on the basis of Burrows, High and Adamski.
(4) Claim 11 on the basis of Burrows, High and Kupfert.
(5) Claim 13 on the basis of Burrows, High and Busko.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
1
(Paper No. 11) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
1An issue arose as to which of the two Briefs (Papers No. 11 and 17) should be
considered. The examiner decided in favor of the Brief filed on December 31, 1998, and
acted upon the claims as they were appended thereto (see Paper No.19).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007