Appeal No. 2000-0447
Application No. 08/838,685
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner
in rejecting the claims are:
Bodicky 4,333,455 June 8, 1982
Heyman 4,571,239 Feb. 18, 1986
Amiel 5,342,350 Aug. 30, 1994
Mikhail et al. (Mikhail) 5,624,395 Apr. 29, 1997
Gore et al. (Gore) 5,662,622 Sep. 2, 1997
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Gore.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gore in view of Mikhail.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gore in view of Amiel.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gore in view of Heyman.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gore.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gore in view of Bodicky.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007