Appeal No. 2006-1392
Application No. 10/619,609
REFERENCE
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
support of the § 103 rejections before us are2:
Hiers (Hiers '876) 4,522,876 Jun. 11, 1985
Frankenburg et al. (Frank) 4,569,088 Feb. 11, 1986
Greiser et al. (Greiser) 5,017,426 May 21, 19913
Heidel et al. (Heidel) 5,171,629 Dec. 15, 1992
Baravian et al. (Baravian) 5,616,395 Apr. 1, 1997
Hiers et al. (Hiers '622) 6,092,622 Jul. 25, 2000
REJECTIONS
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Greiser and
Hiers '622;
2) Claims 1, 3 through 5, 9 through 11, 15, 16 and 32 under
35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Baravian, Hiers '622 and Heidel;
2 The examiner does not list the Heidel reference in the Prior Art of Record
section even though it is relied upon in one of the rejections set forth in
the Answer.
3 The examiner inadvertently causes confusion by assigning two different
patent numbers to Greiser, i.e., "4,522,876" in the Prior Art of Record
section and "5,017,426" in the Ground of Rejection section. The U.S. patent
number "4,522,876" belongs to Hiers '876.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007