Appeal No. 1997-4237
Application No. 08/665,992
over Petrushka in view of Ford, and further in view of Tenberg, and the 35
U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of claims 9-12 as obvious over Petrushka in view of Ford,
and further in view of LaBate
The examiner relies upon the secondary references of Tenberg and LaBate
regarding limitations in some of the dependent claims, and not for curing the
aforementioned deficiencies of Ford and Petrushka. (Answer, pages 5 and 6).
Because the aforementioned deficiencies of Ford and Petrushka are not cured by
the secondary references of Tenberg and LaBate, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. ' 103
rejection of claims 5, 17, and 18 as obvious over Petrushka in view of Ford, and further in
view of Tenberg, and we reverse the 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of claims 9-12 as obvious
over Petrushka in view of Ford, and further in view of LaBate.
III. SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-12, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. '112, paragraph 2 is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ford is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as obvious over
Petrushka in view of Ford is reversed.
The rejection of claims 5, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as obvious over
Petrushka in view of Ford, and further in view of Tenberg is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007