Appeal No. 1999-1398 Page 12
Application No. 08/559,496
The rejection of claims 49-51 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Wicks,
if necessary with DE ‘404 or G ‘340, also further in view of Dorfel or Ely or Rempel, is not
sustained.
The rejection of claims 17-23, 34 and 35 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in
view of Wicks, if necessary with DE ‘404 or G ‘340, also further in view of Dorfel or Ely or
Rempel, and EP ‘477, is sustained.
The rejection of claims 25-29 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Wicks,
if necessary with DE ‘404 or G ‘340, also further in view of Dorfel or Ely or Rempel, and
Pajula, is sustained.
The rejection of claims 14 and 30-32 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of
Wicks, if necessary with DE ‘404 or G ‘340, also further in view of Dorfel or Ely or Rempel,
and Laapotti, is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007