Appeal No. 2001-2076
Application No. 09/107,057
copies of which appear in the Appendix to the substitute appeal
brief (Paper No. 28).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Lit et al. 3,723,823 Mar. 27, 1973
(Lit)
Thornicroft et al. 3,838,777 Oct. 1, 1974
(Thornicroft)
Brusati et al. 5,467,254 Nov. 14, 1995
(Brusati)
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 2 through 9, 11, 14 through 16, 30 through 39, and 41
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lit in view of Brusati and Thornicroft.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the supplemental
answer (Paper No. 29), while the complete statement of
appellants' argument can be found in the substitute appeal brief
(Paper No. 28)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007