Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 5
Application No. 08/138,555
Claims 73, 74, 77, and 78 stand rejected under § 103 as obvious over Ulch in
view of Tolson. Claim 75 stands rejected under § 103 as obvious over either
Mauch '393 or Ulch in view of Tolson further in view of Clark '296. Claims 76 and 79
stand rejected under § 103 as obvious over either Roland, Mauch '393, or Ulch in view
of Tolson further in view of Clark '780.
Claims 80 and 81 stand rejected under § 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No.
4,727,369 (“Rode”) in view of Tolson further in view of Clark '296. Claim 82 stands
rejected under § 103 as obvious over Rode in view of Tolson further in view of Clark
'296 even further in view of Bar-on. Claim 83 stands rejected under § 103 as obvious
over Rode in view of Tolson further in view of Clark '296 further in view of Bar-on further
in view of Shelley.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 45, 46, 48, 50-53, 55-60, 68-70, and 73-80 as unpatentable over
claims 1 and 2 of Larson alone; in rejecting claims 45, 46, 48, 50-53, 55-60, 68-70, and
73-79 as unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of Larson in view of Tolson; and in rejecting
claim 54 as unpatentable over claim 1 of Henderson.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007