Appeal No. 2003-0040 2
Application No. 09/314,079
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of independent claims 1,
11, 21, 30 and 37, which appear in the appendix to appellant’s main brief.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner in the final rejection
and answer as evidence of obviousness:
Poupitch 2,735,470 Feb. 21, 1956
Gruenwald 4,597,692 Jul. 01, 1986
Papp 4,614,065 Sep. 30, 1986
Wollar et. al. (Wollar) 4,740,123 Apr. 26, 1988
Johnson 4,934,715 Jun. 19, 1990
Dannhauser 4,973,191 Nov. 27, 1990
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are before us for review:
(1) claims 1, 2, 6 and 10, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Dannhauser;1
(2) claims 4 and 5, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Dannhauser and Gruenwald;
(3) claims 7, 30-32 and 37, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Dannhauser and Wollar;
(4) claims 8 and 9, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Dannhauser and Poupitch;
(5) claims 11 and 18, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Johnson;
1Claim 2 was inadvertently not included in the list of claims rejected on this
reference combination on page 4 of the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007