Appeal No. 1999-1491
Application No. 08/386,670
1975
Ledesma 4,579,111 Apr. 1, 1986
Deck 5,161,273 Nov. 10,
1992
Emelien 1,449,012 July 4, 1966
(French Patent)
As stated in the final rejection (Paper No. 6), claims 1
through 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck; claim 6 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ledesma in view of Deck
as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Emelien; claim 7
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ledesma in view
of Deck as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Mueller
et al; claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Ledesma in view of Deck as applied to claim 1 and further
in view of Kelly; claims 10, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck
as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Solin;
claims 13 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck and Solin ; 1
1 Claim 20 is not included in the first statement of the
rejection. However, the examiner refers to it in the body of
the rejection of claims 13 through 17. We will therefore
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007