Appeal No. 2001-0036
Application 08/971,611
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Challande.3
Claims 5, 13 through 15 and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Challande in
view of Bernard.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bogner.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed July 3, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the above-noted rejections. Appellants' arguments
thereagainst are found in the brief (Paper No. 17, filed April
21, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed September 8,
2000).
3In contrast to the examiner’s indication in the answer
(page 2) that appellants’ statement of the issues on appeal in
the brief “is correct,” we note that the examiner has (without
comment) apparently withdrawn the rejection of claims 2, 8, 9
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Challande as set
forth on page 2 of the final rejection (Paper No. 11) and now
substituted a rejection of those same claims under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Challande.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007