Ex parte LARIVIERE - Page 5




          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.           


                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007