Appeal No. 2002-0847
Application 09/139,607
basic understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which appears in the
Appendix to the main brief (Paper No. 10).
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has applied the
documents listed below:
Hunger et al 3,250,028 May 10, 1966
(Hunger)
Livesay 4,278,368 Jul. 14, 1981
Townsend 5,553,408 Sep. 10, 1996
Hawkins 5,678,332 Oct. 21, 1997
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2 through 12, 15 through 18, 20, and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hawkins in view of Hunger.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hawkins in view of Hunger, as applied to
claim 1 above, further in view of Livesay.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007