Appeal No. 2001-1666
Application 08/818,333
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claims 1-4, 21, 26 and 27 over the appellant’s admitted prior art
in view of Du Fresne and Worth;1 claim 19 over the appellant’s
admitted prior art in view of Du Fresne, Worth and Kingston,
Knight or Cable; claims 26 and 27 over the appellant’s admitted
prior art in view of Du Fresne, Worth and Hopkins; and claim 28
over the appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Du Fresne,
Worth, Schmidt and optionally Hopkins.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
address only one of the independent claims, i.e., claim 3.2,3
1 The examiner omits claims 26 and 27 from the rejection over
the appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Du Fresne and Worth
in the examiner’s answer (page 6). These claims are included in
this rejection in the final rejection (mailed July 12, 2000,
paper no. 17, page 2) and are included in the discussion of this
rejection in the examiner’s answer (page 9). We therefore
consider the omission of claims 26 and 27 from the statement of
this rejection in the examiner’s answer to be inadvertent.
2 Claim 1, the only other independent claim, is of
comparable scope to claim 3.
3 The references applied to the dependent claims are not
relied upon by the examiner for a teaching which remedies the
deficiency in the applied prior art as to the independent claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007