Appeal No. 2005-0236 Page 2
Application No. 08/642,866
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 3,486,448 Dec. 30, 1969
Giori 4,054,685 Oct. 18, 1977
Arnolds 4,254,709 Mar. 10, 1981
Uribe et al. (Uribe) 5,109,770 May 5, 1992
Sjöberg WO 94/12349 Jun. 9, 1994
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 17-212 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Uribe in view of Anderson and Sjöberg.
Claims 3, 5-7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Uribe in view of Anderson and Sjöberg and further in view of Giori.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uribe
in view of Anderson and Sjöberg and further in view of Arnolds.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed May 14, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the corrected brief (filed March 30, 2004) and reply brief (filed July 16,
2003) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
1 The rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn (answer,
page 5).
2 The inclusion of canceled claims 12 and 13 in this rejection on page 3 of the answer appears to
have been an inadvertent error on the part of the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007