Appeal No. 2002-1573
Application No. 09/113,446
As evidence of anticipation and obviousness, the examiner
has applied the documents listed below:
Matone, Jr. et al 4,758,712 Jul. 19, 1988
(Matone)
Mottmiller et al 5,368,380 Nov. 29, 1994
(Mottmiller)
Schmidt et al 5,796,091 Aug. 18, 1998
(Schmidt) (filed May 13, 1996)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Schmidt.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Matone.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Mottmiller.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the final
rejection and the main and supplemental answers (Paper Nos. 6, 11
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007