Appeal No. 2002-1047
Application 09/083,174
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Fields 4,400,724 Aug. 23, 1983
Secka 4,760,443 Jul. 26, 1988
Matsugu et al. (Matsugu) 5,625,408 Apr. 29, 1997
Gilblom et al. 5,650,813 Jul. 22, 1997
Green 5,696,837 Dec. 9, 1997
Rejections at Issue
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Matsugu. Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Fields. Claims 2, 3, and
4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Matsugu in view of Green. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields in view of Matsugu.
Claims 5, 10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Matsugu in view of Gilblom. Claims 6
through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matsugu in view of Green and Secka.
Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the briefs1 and
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on July 31, 2001.
Appellants filed a reply brief on November 29, 2001. The
Examiner mailed out an office communication on December 13, 2001,
stating that the reply brief has been entered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007