Appeal No. 2000-1787
Application No. 08/646,735
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hargis in view of Beers.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hargis in view of Sarma.
Claims 7 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hargis in view of Beers.
The full text of the examiner's prior art rejections and
response to the argument presented by appellants appears in the
answer (Paper No. 14), while the complete statement of
appellants' argument can be found in the main and reply briefs
(Paper Nos. 13 and 16).
In the matter of the respective prior art rejections on
appeal, appellants indicate (main brief, page 5) that claims 1
through 3 stand or fall together, claims 5 and 6 stand or fall
together, and claims 7 through 9 stand or fall together.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007