Ex parte KAMBOJ et al.; Ex parte FOLDES et al. - Page 126


                  Appeal No.  1999-2200                                                                                        
                  Application No.  08/896,063                                                                                  
                          We affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.   §                           
                  102(b) as being anticipated by Cutting.                                                                      
                          We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18,                       
                  19, 26, and 42-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                              
                  Heinemann in view of Puckett, Sun, Schofield, and Grenningloh.                                               
                          We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 24 and 27 are rejected                             
                  under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann in view of Puckett,                               
                  Sun, Schofield, and Grenningloh as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18,                        
                  19, 26, and 42-49 above, and further in view of Cutting.                                                     
                  Appeal No. 2000-1778:  Reversed                                                                              
                          We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 43-45, and 49-52 under                             
                  35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heinemann in view of Puckett and Sun.                             
                  Appeal No. 2000-1779:  Affirmed-in-Part                                                                      
                          We affirm the rejection of claims 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                           
                  unpatentable over the combination of McNamara and Sommer ‘90.                                                
                          We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                             
                  being unpatentable over the combination of McNamara and Sommer ‘90.                                          













                                                             126                                                               



Page:  Previous  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007