Appeal No. 97-1114 Page 4
Application No. 08/222,643
Claims 7 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Roth in view of Callison.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the §§ 102 and 103
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
12, mailed October 17, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 11, filed July 26, 1996) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 6
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Roth.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007