Appeal No. 96-1881
Application No. 08/095,476
Claims 40, 51, 53 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bolla in view of Casey and Rudy
'250.
Claims 47 and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 37,
40 and 45 above, and further in view of Rudy '945.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103 rejections, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 34, mailed
August 8, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 33,
filed May 8, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 35, filed October
20, 1995) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007