Appeal No. 2004-2121
Application No. 08/160,835
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis or Kellner as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of Chaumeau.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Davis or Kellner as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Muller.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis or Kellner as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of Kintish.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Davis or Kellner as applied to claim 1 above,
and further in view of Brauer.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary
regarding the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 14, mailed May 3, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007