Ex parte IVE - Page 5




                     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