Appeal No. 2003-1470
Application No. 08/847,763
De Goicoechea et al. 5,383,927 Jan. 24, 1995
(De Goicoechea)
Marchant 5,455,040 Oct. 8, 1995
Pinchuk et al. (Pinchuk) 5,804,3181 Sep. 8, 1998
(filed Oct 26, 1995)
Whitbourne 5,997,517 Dec. 7, 1999
(filed Jan. 27, 1997)
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are before
us on this appeal:2
Claims 1-3, 5 and 11 stand rejected over Whitbourne in view
of Ward or De Goicoechea; claims 8 and 10 stand rejected over
Whitbourne in view of Ward or De Goicoechea and further in view
of Hu; claims 1-3, 5 and 8 stand rejected over Marchant in view
of Ward or De Goicoechea; and claims 1-3, 9, 14, 16 and 17 stand
rejected over Pinchuk in view of Ward or De Goicoechea.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a thorough discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
1 On page 3 of the answer, the examiner erroneously lists
Pinchuk Patent No. 5,053,048 as one of the prior art references
relied upon in the rejections before us. The file record clearly
reflects, however, that it is Pinchuk Patent No. 5,804,318 which
has been applied by the examiner in the rejections of record and
advanced on this appeal.
2 The examiner’s section 112, first paragraph, rejection has
been withdrawn; see page 2 of the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007