Appeal No. 95-4588
Application 08/127,123
Claims 3 through 5, 8 through 10, 12 through 14 and
16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bousquet in view of Smith and Rogers.3
Rather than reiterate the examiner's explanation of
the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding that rejec-
tion, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 43, mailed May
10, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 42, filed
February 3, 1995) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
3While the statement of the rejection on page 3 of the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 43) includes claims 6 and 7, it
is clear from the record of this application that these claims
were canceled in the amendment filed April 28, 1994 (Paper No.
36).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007