Appeal No. 2001-0999
Application No. 08/972,220
Daly et al. ( Daly) 5,748,896 May 05, 1998
(Filed Dec. 27, 1995)
Mayo et al. (Mayo) 5,751,965 May 12, 1998
(Filed Mar. 21, 1996)
Kulkarni et al. (Kulkarni) 5,848,243 Dec. 08, 1998
(Filed Nov. 13, 1995)
Claims 1-3, 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Daly. Claims 4, 7, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Daly in view of Mayo. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Dev. Claims 6 and 13-17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Wanderer.
Claims 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in
view of Mayo and further in view of Wanderer. Claims 18, 20, and 22-24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Kulkarni. Claims 19
and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable Daly in view of
Kulkarni further in view of Mayo.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed Sep. 12, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 16, filed Jul. 24, 2000) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007