Appeal No. 2000-0765
Application No. 08/670,929
Claims 1, 5, 6, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Jacobs. Claims 2, 23, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 38-40, 42, and 43 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs. Claims 3, 4, 25,
and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in
view of Cameron. Claims 27, 30-32, and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of Cameron, Taligent, and Bosworth.
Claims 7, 8, 16, 19, 41 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cameron in view of Taligent and Bosworth.
Claims 9 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ferguson. Claims 10-15, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Taligent and Bosworth.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No.14, mailed Nov. 22, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 12, filed Sep. 7, 1999) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007