Appeal No. 96-3544
Application No. 08/296,856
Claims 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Heyman in view of Binard and Paxson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the §§ 102(b) and 103
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
17, mailed April 21, 1995), the examiner's answer (Paper No. 25,
mailed March 6, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 29, mailed February 7, 1997) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 24, filed November 20, 1995) and
reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed April 4, 1996) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the 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