Appeal No. 2000-0178
Application 08/686,630
In addition to the foregoing, this merits panel of the Board
has relied upon the following prior art reference in a new ground
of rejection entered under 37 CFR § 1.196(b):
Epstein et al. (Epstein ‘957)1 5,131,957 Jul. 21, 1992
Claims 1, 2 and 11 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nazmy in view of the American
Machinist article.
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nazmy in view of the American Machinist article
as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Neal.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nazmy in view of the American Machinist article
as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Mannava
(‘329).
1 This Epstein patent was cited by appellants in their
Information Disclosure Statement filed July 24, 1996.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007