Appeal No. 96-1410
Application No. 08/321,384
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Meyer.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Meyer in view of Morris.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Levesque.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 102 (e) and the
§ 103 rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 20, mailed January 23, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 27, mailed November 6, 1995) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 26, filed September 11, 1995) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007