Appeal No. 1998-1807
Application No. 08/090,770
(filed Jul. 18,
1991)
Hammar et al. 5,273,559
Dec. 28, 1993
(Hammar) (effective filing date Aug. 30,
1991)
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 2, 8, 20, 21, 26, 30 and 31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wiand;
Claims 1, 2, 20 through 25 and 31 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hammar; and
Claims 1 through 14, 20, 21 and 26 through 32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wiand alone or in combination with Pieper.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper No. 16) and
the first and second supplemental Answers (Paper Nos. 18 and
20, respectively) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the main Brief (Paper No.
15) and the first, second and third reply Briefs (Paper Nos.
17, 19 and 21, respectively) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007