Appeal No. 2000-0427
Application No. 08/773,173
Claims 18, and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dockery in view of the admitted prior art
and Emmons.
Claims 30-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dockery in view of the admitted prior art and
Seymour.
Claims 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dockery in view of the admitted prior art
and Ikezaki.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dockery in view of the admitted prior art and
Kohar.
Claims 43-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Dockery in view of the admitted prior art and Rumbolt.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs1 and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
1 A reply brief was filed as Paper No. 36 on July 9, 1999.
The examiner noted the entry of the reply brief, see Paper No.
37.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007