Appeal No. 1998-2671
Application No. 08/480,543
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-18 of U.S. Patent
No. 5,108,951.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation and
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the prior
art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs 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 disclosure of Mintz does not fully meet the invention as
1 The Appeal Brief was filed July 31, 1997. In response to
the Examiner’s Answer dated October 28, 1997, a Reply Brief was
filed January 21, 1998, which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner as indicated in the communication dated January 28,
1998.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007