Appeal No. 1999-1112
Application No. 08/683,705
shown in Figure 22.
CONCLUSION
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by
Nourney or Holland. We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by Groupp or Eland or Fricke. We have not sustained the rejection of claims 4-6 under 35
U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Maloney or Nourney. We also have not sustained the rejection of
claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over either one of Maloney or Nourney in view of
Fishman nor have we sustained the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as relying on an inadequate written description.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by
Wachi and we have sustained the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over Wachi in view of Fishman.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended
under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007