Ex parte HEYWORTH - Page 3




          Appeal No. 98-3291                                                          
          Application 08/534,705                                                      


          Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                     
          as being unpatentable over Copenhaver in view of Spinosa.                   


          Claims 8 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                    
          as being unpatentable over Copenhaver in view of Lorenzana.                 


          Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of                      
          the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints                   
          advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the                        
          rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper               
          No. 13, mailed September 3, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning              
          in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s supplemental               
          brief (Paper No. 12, filed May 5, 1997) for appellant’s                     
          arguments thereagainst.                                                     


          OPINION                                                                     


          In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                      
          careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,              
          to the applied prior art references, and to the respective                  
          positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.  As a                  

                                          3                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007