Appeal No. 96-3854
Application No. 08/027,872
16 and 18 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bach in view of Madden; and
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Madden.5
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.
17) for the complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and
to the corrected brief filed September 5, 1995 (Paper No. 16)
and the reply brief (Paper No. 18), 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, and to the
5Rejections of claims 1, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Madden have been withdrawn (answer, page 4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007