Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 2
Application No. 10/437,840
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Ray D 3,444 Apr. 6, 1869
Langhorne et al. (Langhorne) D 4,079 May 31, 1870
Fraser 5,450,926 Sep. 19, 1995
Misaresh 5,933,994 Aug. 10, 1999
Hoshi 4,934,079 June 19, 1990
The rejections
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
the appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray and further in view of Hoshi.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray and further in view of Misaresh.
Claims 1 and 3 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Misaresh in view of Fraser.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007