Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
3) Claims 21 through 25, 27, 31, 44 through 46, 48, 52, 54, 55
and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being based on a defective
reissue declaration;
4) Claims 21 through 23, 25, 44 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Hagel and
Mikes3;
5) Claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Hagel, Mikes and Schaeffer;
6) Claims 24, 44 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hagel, Mikes and Determann;
7) Claims 27, 31, 48 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Hagel, Mikes,
Porath and Ayers;
8) Claims 54 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Hagel, Mikes, Ayers and Yuki;
and
9) Claim 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Hagel, Mikes, Ayers, Yuki and
Determann.
3 The examiner has inadvertently included cancelled claim
29 in this rejection. Accordingly, we have omitted claim 29 from
this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007