Appeal No. 96-0324
Application 08/045,747
Claims 1 through 6 stand additionally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of
Georgiev, Moulton, Clark and Isaac.
Claims 7 through 16 and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of
Georgiev, Moulton, Clark and Isaac as applied to claims 1-6
above, and further in view of Schwinn.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 11, mailed January 24, 1995) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the above-noted rejections. Appellant's
arguments thereagainst are found in the brief (Paper No. 10,
filed November 1, 1994) and in the reply brief (Paper No. 13,
filed March 23, 1995).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellant's
specification and claims, the applied prior art references and
the respective viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007