Appeal No. 1998-2989
Application No. 08/566,987
Bhargava et al. (Bhargava) 5,471,248 Nov. 28, 1995
Lund 5,650,858 Jul. 22, 1997
(filed Apr. 17, 1995)
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhargava. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhargava in view of Lund. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava in view of Ghosh. Claim 9 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava in view of Cornyn. Claims 10
and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bhargava in view
of Cornyn and Stockholm. Claims 15-18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ghosh in view of Keith. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh in view of Keith and Lund.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Jun. 22, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed Apr. 17, 1998) and reply
brief (Paper No. 12, filed Jul. 27, 1998) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007