Appeal No. 2000-0196
Application 08/796,478
Barmatz et al. (Barmatz ‘823) 4,777,823 Oct.
18, 1988
Danley et al. (Danley) 5,036,9442 Aug. 6, 1991
Claims 1, 10 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Barmatz ‘823 in view of Rey.
Claims 2, 4, 5 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Barmatz ‘823 in view of Rey and
Danley.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Barmatz ‘823 in view of Rey and Murphy.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Barmatz ‘435 in view of Dorr.
The examiner has listed another U.S. Patent to Danley et al.2
(4,757,227). However, from the body of the rejection it is clear that Danley
et al. (5,036,944) is the patent which is really being used. For our purposes,
we have considered Danley 5,036,944 in our decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007