Appeal No. 2000-0240
Application No. 08/285,534
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Medamana et al. 5,181,238 Jan. 19, 1993
Weinreb 5,426,747 Jun. 20, 1995
(Filed Mar. 22, 1991)
Claims 39-41, 45-47, 51-55, 65-67, 70-77, 79 and 80 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being clearly anticipated by Weinreb. Claims 42-44, 48-50, 56-64, 68,
69, and 78 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weinreb in
view of Medamana.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 28, mailed Oct. 12, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 27, filed Apr. 26, 1999) and reply brief
(Paper No. 29, filed Dec. 13, 1999) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007