Appeal No. 2002-0963
Application No. 08/122,344
Sherwood, Hebert and Boss, and further in view of Benson or
Alenskis.
(3) Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans in view of Chitwood, Sherwood, Hebert and
Boss, and further in view of McClean.
(4) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Evans in view of Chitwood, Sherwood, Hebert and
Boss, and further in view of Klein or Lemelson.
(5) Claims 10, 11, 18 and 22 through 28 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evans in view of
Chitwood, Sherwood, Hebert and Boss, and further in view of
Forbes.
(6) Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23 through 26 and 28
through 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sherwood in view of Boss.
(7) Claims 2, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sherwood in view of Boss, and
further in view of Benson or Alenskis.
(8) Claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 18, 22 and 27 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sherwood in
view of Boss, and further in view of Hebert.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007