Appeal No. 98-1523 Page 3
Application No. 08/705,744
Claims 18 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Azibert ‘496.
Claims 18, 20, 23 through 25 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Radosav.
Claims 18, 20, 23 through 25 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Duffee.
Claims 20, 24, 25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Malmstrom.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's final
rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed May 19, 1997) and answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed November 25, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 12, filed September 30, 1997) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007