Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
Okada et al. (Okada) 5,526,398 Jun. 11, 1996
(filed May 4, 1993)
Driessen et al. (Driessen) 5,574,771 Nov. 12, 1996
(filed Aug. 15, 1994)
Claims 1 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Driessen in view of Okada and Lucas.
Claims 3 through 12 and 141 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Driessen in view of
Okada, Lucas, and Arnold.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Driessen in view of Okada, Lucas, and Harrison.
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Driessen in view of Yamada.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed July 19, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
17, filed May 10, 1999) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 19, filed
September 16, 1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
1 We note that although the examiner fails to include
claims 5 through 7 in the statement of the rejection, the
examiner discusses claims 5 through 7 with the claims rejected
over Driessen in view of Okada, Lucas, and Arnold, and appellants
have treated them as being rejected together. Accordingly, we
have included claims 5 through 7 in this rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007