Appeal No. 2004-1312 Page 9
Application No. 08/710,554
Rejection 6
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 66 to 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Inland [illegible] Products Company in view of Doi, Schmitt-
Raiser and Bilotta. We have reviewed the reference to Bilotta but find nothing therein
which makes up for the deficiency of Inland [illegible] Products Company, Doi and
Schmitt-Raiser discussed in rejection 5 above.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 57 to 60, 62 and 64 to
69 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Maeda is reversed; the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 57 to 60, 62 and 64 to 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nason in view of Doi is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claim 63 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nason in view of Doi and Yeomans is
reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claim 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nason in view of Doi and Inland [illegible] Products Company is
reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 57 to 60, 62 to 65 and 70 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inland [illegible] Products Company in view of
Doi and Schmitt-Raiser is reversed; and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 66 to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007