Appeal No. 1999-1484
Application No. 07/963,109
be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 57, 111, and 120,
respective copies of which appear in the APPENDIX to the brief
(Paper No. 41).
In support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), the
examiner has referenced the document specified below:
Freidmann et al 5,242,328 Sep. 7, 1993
(Freidmann and (filed Apr. 24, 1990, a continuation of
Zapf) Ser. No. 69,525, filed July 2, 1987)1
The following rejection is the sole rejection before us for
review.
Claims 57 through 87, 89, 99 through 101, 103, 109, and 111
through 128 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) for the
reason that appellants did not invent the claimed subject matter.
The full text of the examiner’s rejection and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer (Paper
1 The effective filing date of the present application is
likewise July 2, 1987. Further, the Freidmann and Zapf patent and
the present application reference the same foreign priority
documents.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007