Appeal No. 2001-1482
Application No. 08/879,392
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Boucher.1
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hexter in view of Suderov.
Claims 6 through 10 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hexter in view of Itzkowitz.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Boucher.
Claims 6 through 10, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boucher in view of Van Cleef.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full explanation of the above-noted
rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 22,
mailed August 29, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to
appellant's supplemental brief (Paper No. 20, filed June 7, 2000) and reply brief (Paper
No. 24, filed October 12, 2000) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
1 In both this rejection and the one based on Hexter, it appears the examiner has mistakenly
included claims 16 and 17 in the ground of rejection set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the answer (Paper No. 22),
because those claims were canceled in Paper No. 13, filed August 18, 1999).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007