Appeal No. 2003-0693
Application No. 09/006,248
Blatt et al. (Blatt ‘276) 5,135,276 Aug. 04, 1992
Blatt et al. (Blatt ‘566) 5,152,566 Oct. 06, 1992
Herbermann et al. 5,733,097 Mar. 31, 1998
(Herbermann ‘097)
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are before us for review:1
(1) claims 39 and 40, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
(2) claims 1-16 and 18, rejected as being unpatentable
over Blatt ‘276 in view of Hurlimann, Vachtsevanos,
Kraft and Blatt ‘566;
(3) claims 19-24 and 26, rejected as being unpatentable
over Dailey in view of Hayes, Vachtsevanos,
Herbermann ‘309, Larsson and Blatt ‘276;
(4) claims 25, 27 and 46, rejected as being unpatentable
over Dailey in view of Hayes, Vachtsevanos,
Herbermann ‘309, Larsson, Blatt ‘276 and Giern;
(5) claims 29, 31, 33 and 41, rejected as being
unpatentable over Herbermann ‘097 in view of Blatt
‘566 and Kraft;
1In the final rejection, claim 46 was also included in
rejection (1), and claims 39 and 40 were also rejected as being
unpatentable over Honma in view of Larsson. However, these
rejection have been expressly withdrawn by the examiner. See
page 2 of the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007