Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 The corresponding language in claims 10, 11, and 14 is being construed in a similar
2 manner.
3 The scope and meaning of claims 93-104 are addressed prior to the discussion of the
4 rejections of those claims.
5 G. The references relied on in the rejections29
6 1. U.S. Patents
7
8 De Maine et al. (De Maine) 3,656,178 Apr. 11, 1972
9
10 Giltner et al. (Giltner) 4,386,416 May 31, 1983
11
12 Kandell et al. (Kandell) 4,430,530 Feb. 7, 1984
13
14 Walter 4,506,387 Mar. 19, 1985
15
16 Gargini et al. (Gargini) 4,538,174 Aug. 27, 1985
17
18 Kirchner et al. (Kirchner) 4,665,519 May 12, 1987
19
20 Catros et al. (Catros) 4,679,079 July 7, 1987
21
22 Sugiyama et al. (Sugiyama) 4,797,742 Jan. 10, 1989
23
24 McCalley et al. (McCalley) 4,829,372 May 9, 1989
25
26 Cohen 4,949,l87 Aug. 14, 1990
27
28 Notenboom 4,955,066 Sep. 4, 1990
29
30 Pocock et al. (Pocock) 5,014,125 May 7,
31 1991
32
29 The filing date of Yurt is being provided because appellant has is attempting to
antedate it under 37 CFR § 1.131.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007