Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
103 as being unpatentable over Mackey in view of Gregg.
Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mackey in view of Hintze.
The examiner’s rejections are explained on pages 3-6 of
the answer. The arguments of the appellants and examiner in
support of their respective positions may be found on pages 7-
24 of the brief and pages 6-9 of the answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellants’ invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellants in the brief and by the examiner in
the answer. As a consequence of this review, we will (1)
affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), (2) reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), (3) affirm the rejections of claims 6-8,
11, 12, 16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and (4) reverse the
rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Additionally, pursuant to our authority under
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007