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