Appeal No. 97-0180
Application 08/374,131
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention.
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement of
the above noted rejections and the conflicting view points
advanced by the appellant and the examiner regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the Office action mailed
November 27, 1985 (Paper No. 5) and the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 12) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
10) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions in this case we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s invention as
described in the specification, to the appealed claims, to
the prior art applied by the examiner and to the respective
view points advanced by the appellant in the brief and the
examiner in the answer. These considerations lead us to make
the following determinations.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 4-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007