Appeal No. 2004-1177
Application No. 08/769,404
Rowland et al. (Rowland) 5,848,412 Dec. 8, 1998
(filed Nov. 19, 1996)
Reed et al. (Reed) 5,862,325 Jan. 19, 1999
(filed Sep. 27, 1996)
Hurvig 5,978,802 Nov. 2, 1999
(filed Jun. 7, 1995)
Dietzman 5,978,804 Nov. 2, 1999
(filed Apr. 11, 1996)
Claims 1-4, 9-27, 29-31, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, and 44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hurvig in view of Rowland. Claims 5-8 and
39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hurvig and
Rowland in view of O’Rourke. Claims 28, 34, 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hurvig and Rowland in view of Marlin. Claims 32 and
33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hurvig and
Rowland in view of Reed. Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hurvig and Rowland in view of Dietzman.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 41, mailed Dec. 30, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 40, filed Nov. 3, 2003) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007