Appeal No. 2001-0843
Application No. 08/945,415
Examiner offers Shope in view of Takayanagi with respect to
claims 1-6, and adds Deschuytere to the basic combination
with respect to claims 7 and 14-18.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and
the Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2 and Answer
for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the
arguments in support of the rejection and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. 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 rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
1 The Examiner’s inclusion of claims 8-13 in the statement of the grounds of
rejection at page 4 of the Answer is an apparent inadvertent error since these
claims were canceled by Appellants’ May 1, 2000 amendment after final
rejection, which the Examiner approved for entry.
2 The Appeal Brief was filed August 1, 2000 (Paper No. 20). In response to
the Examiner’s Answer dated October 24, 2000, (Paper No. 22), a Reply Brief
was filed December 27, 2000 (Paper No. 25), which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner in the communication dated March 19, 2002 (Paper No. 28).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007