Appeal No. 1998-2566
Application 08/685,420
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Erpelding. Claims 5, 6, 11, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27 and 34
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness the examiner offers Erpelding taken alone with
respect to claims 5, 17 and 24, and the examiner adds Picault
with respect to claims 6, 11, 15, 18, 25, 27 and 34.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon does not support any
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007