Appeal No. 97-1952
Application 08/289,068
103 as being unpatentable over McMurtrie in view of
Chiaramonte as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view
of Leichle and Smith.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McMurtrie in view of Chiaramonte as applied
to claim 14 above, and further in view of Smith and Lavoine.
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McMurtrie, Chiaramonte, Leichle and Smith as
applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Hettmer.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McMurtrie, Chiaramonte, Leichle and Smith as
applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Turner.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 18, mailed October 4, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejec-tions, and to appellant's brief (Paper
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007