Appeal No. 97-3197 Page 3
Application No. 08/418,021
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Boos in view of Fry and Ramey as applied to
claim 6 above, and further in view of Johenning.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fry in view of Boos and Ramey as applied to
claim 6 above, and further in view of Johenning.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103 and § 112
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
12, mailed March 26, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper
No. 11, filed February 20, 1997) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007