Appeal No. 1997-3868 Page 4
Application No. 08/538,838
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-14 and 16-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watkin in view of
Bennett, Kasper or the prior art admission. Claims 5 and 6
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Watkin in view of Bennett, Kasper or the prior art
admission, and further in view of Nath. Claim 15 stands
rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watkin in view of
Bennett, Kasper or the prior art admission, and further in
view of Anagnostou. Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Watkin2 in view of Bennett,
Kasper or the prior art admission, and further in view of
either Turner or Staats. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected
under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watkin in view of
either Bennett or the prior art admission.
OPINION
2 We regard the examiner’s inadvertent omission of the Watkin
reference from the statement of rejection at page 4 of the answer as
harmless error. See, e.g., page 3 of the final rejection, item No.
6, pages 2 and 3 of the answer and item No. 9, page 7 of the brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007