Appeal No. 1999-0299
Application No. 08/353,413
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kline.
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
answer (Paper No. 10, mailed Oct. 17, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed Feb. 4, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 9, filed Aug. 6, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 11, filed Nov. 15, 1996) 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 reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
From our review of the Kline reference, we agree with appellant that Kline alone
does not teach or suggest the vertical alignment and horizontal offset of the individual
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007