Appeal No. 2000-2254
Application No. 08/746,746
2. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Schellinger in view of
Gillig and further in view of Ramsdale.
3. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Schellinger in view of
Gillig and further in view of Alvesalo.
4. Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Schellinger
in view of Gillig and further in view of D’Amico.
5. Claims 13-18, 20-22, 24-29, 32-34, 36-40 and 43-45
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Schellinger in view of D’Amico.
6. Claims 23, 35 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Schellinger
in view of D’Amico and further in view of Alvesalo.
7. Claims 19, 31 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Schellinger
in view of D’Amico and further in view of Ramsdale.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007