Appeal No. 1998-3276
Application No. 08/667,211
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Caslaw 3,661,639 May 9, 1972
Tachikawa et al. 4,323,402 Apr. 6, 1982
(Tachikawa)
Benz et al. 2 257 437 A Jan. 13, 1993
(Benz) (published UK
patent application)
Corporate Research and Development Technical Report 91CRD124
from L.E. Rumaner, General Electric Co., to M. Benz et al.,
General Electric Co. (June 1991).2
Four separate grounds of rejection are before us in this
appeal. First, claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 12 on appeal
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rumaner. (Examiner’s answer, pages 3-5.) Second, claims 1
through 3, 5 through 8, and 10 on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Caslaw. (Id. at pages 5-
6.) Third, claims 1, 4, and 6 through 8 on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tachikawa. (Id.) Fourth, claims 1, 4, 6 through 8, and 10 on
appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Benz. (Id.)
2 While this document appears to be an internal corporate
memorandum, the appellants have not disputed its availability as
prior art.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007