Ex parte ALTSCHULER et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 96-2635                                                          
          Application 07/993,050                                                      



                    Claims 1, 5, 7 through 9, 11 and 13 stand rejected                
          under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Ross in view of            
          Settle and Anderson.                                                        


                    Claims 2 through 4, 10, 12 and 14 through 17 stand                
          rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Ross in           
          view of Settle and Anderson as applied to claim 1 above, and                
          further in view of Prichep.                                                 


                    Rather than reiterate the examiner's explanation of               
          the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints                   
          advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those                     
          rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.           
          20, mailed August 21, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in                 
          support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.              
          15, filed March 6, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed               
          September 26, 1995) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.                 


          OPINION                                                                     





                                          4                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007