Ex parte C.A. BUFFINGTON, et al. - Page 3

          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.                                         

               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.                                                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007