Appeal No. 2001-0533
Application No. 09/322,043
Matsubara 4,946,034 Aug.
7, 1990
Roark 5,379,909 Jan. 10,
1995
The following rejections stand before us for review.2
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Smith.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Roark in view of Smith.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of Conti.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Roark in view of Smith and Taylor.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of Matsubara.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of Leopold.
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper
Nos. 11 and 13) and the answer (Paper No. 12) for the
All other rejections set forth in the final rejection have been2
withdrawn (answer, p. 4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007