Appeal No. 1999-2812 Page 4
Application No. 08/724,049
Claims 16 to 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Molins.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer for the1
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief and reply brief (Paper No. 23, filed May 24,
1999) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
1The rejection of claims 16 to 28 under the judicially
created doctrine of double patenting set forth in the final
rejection was withdrawn by the examiner in the answer (p. 10).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007