Appeal No. 2000-0170
Application No. 08/811,124
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Yoda.
Claim 42 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee and Wilson.
Claims 43 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lee and Honeycutt.
Claims 43 through 45, and 57 through 60 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda in view of
Honeycutt.
Claims 46 through 48, and 57 through 60 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Wilson and
Honeycutt.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, we make reference to the amended brief (paper no. 13,
filed on Feb. 22, 1999), reply brief (paper no. 15, filed on Jun.
28, 1999) and the examiner’s answer (paper no. 14, mailed on
April 22, 1999) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007