Appeal No. 2000-0588 Page 21
Application No. 08/824,110
CONCLUSION
To summarize, in this decision, we have:
(1) reversed the examiner’s rejection of claims 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph;
(2) reversed the examiner’s rejections of claims 19-22 as being anticipated by Sirota
and of claims 1 and 2 as being unpatentable over Sirota in view of Hughes;
(3) reversed the examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5 as being unpatentable over Wingate
in view of Hughes and Rose;
(4) affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 15-17 as being unpatentable over
Wingate in view of Nakajima as to claims 12, 15 and 16 and reversed the rejection as to
claim 17;
(5) reversed the examiner’s rejections of claims 6-9 as being unpatentable over
Wingate, of claims 10 and 11 as being unpatentable over Wingate in view of Hughes, of
claims 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Wingate in view of Nakajima and Rose
and of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Wingate in view of Hughes and Sirota; and
(6) entered a new rejection of claims 2, 3, 19, 20 and 22 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one or more claims, this
decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b). 37 CFR
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007