Appeal No. 98-2005
Application No. 08/571,156
Claims 1 through 5, 8 through 13 and 17 through 20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki
in view of Buhl.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Aoki in view of Buhl as applied to claim 9
above, and further in view of Watson.
Rather than reiterate each of the points of argument
advocated by appellants, we make reference to pages 4-6 of the
brief (Paper No. 10, filed July 14, 1997) and to the reply
brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 13, 1998) for a full
statement thereof. The examiner's comments regarding the
above-noted rejections and in response to appellants’
arguments may be found on pages 4-9 of the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed December 9, 1997).
OPINION
Having carefully considered appellants’ specification and
claims, the teachings of the applied references, the Admitted
Prior Art, and the respective positions of appellants and the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007