Appeal No. 1998-2358 Page 3
Application No. 08/396,243
(2) Claims 2-5 and 7 as being unpatentable over Cardenas
in view of Breski and Schultz;
(3) Claims 11 and 15-19 as being unpatentable over
Cardenas in view of Chandhoke;
(4) Claim 20 as being unpatentable over Cardenas in view
of Chandhoke and Schultz;
(5) Claims 21 and 23 as being unpatentable over Chandhoke;
(6) Claim 22 as being unpatentable over Chandhoke in view
of Anderson; and
(7) Claim 24 as being unpatentable over Chandhoke in view
of Schultz.
The examiner's rejections are explained on pages 4-19 of
the answer. The arguments of the appellants and examiner in
support of their respective positions may be found on pages 5-
22 of the brief, pages 1-6 of the reply brief and pages 20-30
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007