Appeal No. 1999-2347
Application 08/892,560
Claims 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woo.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Woo, as applied to claim 21, further in view of
Butler or Keller.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Woo, as applied to claim 21, further in view of
Stocker.
Claims 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barber and either Erie or Kim
and optionally with Woo.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barber and either Erie or Kim and optionally
with Woo, as applied to claim 21, further in view of Butler or
Keller.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barber and either Erie or Kim and optionally
with Woo, as applied to claim 21, further in view of Wolf.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barber and either Erie or Kim and optionally
with Woo, as applied to claim 21, further in view of Stocker.
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Barber and either Erie or Kim and
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007