Appeal No. 2002-1856
Application No. 09/255,699
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Houser 3,701,476 Oct. 31, 1972
Robertson et al. (Robertson) 5,487,378 Jan. 30, 1996
Ciardella et al. (Ciardella) 5,505,777 Apr. 9, 1996
Sander et al. (Sander) 5,991,019 Nov. 23, 1999
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ciardella in view of Houser.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ciardella in view of Houser and Robertson.
Claims 1, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ciardella in view of Houser and
Sander.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 20 and 22) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 21) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007