Appeal No. 96-0324 Application 08/045,747 Claims 1 through 6 stand additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Georgiev, Moulton, Clark and Isaac. Claims 7 through 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Georgiev, Moulton, Clark and Isaac as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Schwinn. Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed January 24, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the above-noted rejections. Appellant's arguments thereagainst are found in the brief (Paper No. 10, filed November 1, 1994) and in the reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed March 23, 1995). OPINION In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered appellant's specification and claims, the applied prior art references and the respective viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner. 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007