Appeal No. 97-1761 Page 4
Application No. 08/380,223
Claims 16 through 19, 23 and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yano or Kuhl in
view of the admitted prior art.
Claims 16, 20 through 22 and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer in view of
the admitted prior art.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 24, mailed August 28, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 23, filed April 3, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 25, filed November 6, 1996) 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, to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007