Appeal No. 2000-0855
Application No. 08/597,377
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Proxmire;
(2) claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Proxmire;
(3) claims 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Proxmire in view of Pieniak, Sigl,
Bianco, Buell and Richardson; and
(4) claims 8 through 10 and 20 through 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Proxmire in view
of Hasse and Lawson.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by the appellants appears in the
answer (Paper No. 43), while the complete statement of the
appellants’ argument can be found in the main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 42 and 44, respectively).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007