Appeal No. 2001-1208
Application No. 09/057,585
Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Poradish.
Claims 82 through 10, 13 through 15, 18 through 20, 23, 28
and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Burstyn.
Claims 2, 11, 16, 17, 21 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burstyn in view of
van den Brandt ‘730.
Claims 3, 4, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burstyn in view of
van den Brandt ‘184.
Claims 3 through 6 and 24 through 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burstyn in view of
Levis.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 13),
the answer (paper number 18) and the briefs (paper numbers 17 and
20) for the respective positions of the examiner and the
appellant.
1Appellant and the examiner both recognize that claim 7
depends from claim 1, and, therefore, includes all of the
limitations of claim 1 (brief, page 7; answer, page 5).
2In view of appellant’s grouping of the claims (brief, page
4), claim 12 will be considered with claim 8.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007