Appeal No. 1999-0865
Application No. 08/468,573
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Fessenden 1,101,914 Jun. 30, 1914
Keeble 4,844,775 Jul. 04, 1989
Müller 4,849,675 Jul. 18, 1989
Barnes et al. (Barnes) 5,241,245 Aug. 31, 1993
(filed May 06, 1992)
Claims 57-60 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Fessenden. Claims 61-68 stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Keeble in view of Fessenden, Barnes, and Müller.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejection, and the evidence of anticipation and
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
1 The Appeal Brief was filed June 9, 1998. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer dated June 24, 1998, a Reply Brief was filed July 13, 1998,
which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the
communication dated July 24, 1998.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007