Appeal No. 96-0126
Application 07/942,400
The following references are relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness:
Konig-Lamer et al. (Konig-Lamer) 4,358,389 Nov. 9,
1982
Ma et al. (Ma) 4,954,279 Sep.
4, 1990
Seaman 4,978,469 Dec. 18,
1990
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ma, while claims 1 through 10 stand rejected
under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Ma and Konig-
Lamer in view of Seaman.3
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain each of the
above noted rejections, and we will make a new rejection of
3 The appellants have separately grouped and argued the appealed claims as
follows: claims 1-8, claim 9 and claim 10; see page 3 of the Brief and page 2 of the
Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007