Appeal No. 2003-0187
Application No. 09/134,109
Claims 39, 41, 44, 45, 47 and 48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of
Hanson and Gühring or Vasudeva.
Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheng in view of Hanson and Gühring or Vasudeva
as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Kazen and
Hurson.
Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheng in view of Kazen and Hurson as applied to
claim 1 above, and further in view of Gühring.
Claims 39, 41, 44, 47 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of Gühring or
Vasudeva.
Claims 50, 51 and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lay in view of Yeh or Kaszubinski.2
2 The rejection of claims 40 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, made in the final rejection (Paper No. 15, page 2), has now
been withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed by
appellants on October 20, 2000 (Paper No. 17), and thus is not before
us on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007