Appeal No. 96-2780
Application 08/162,362
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marrujo ‘441.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Marrujo ‘441 as applied to claim 13 above, and
further in view of Moscovitch.
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
appellants and the examiner regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 40) for the
examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
appellants substitute brief (Paper No. 39) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions in this case, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ invention as described
in the specification, to the appealed claims, to the prior art
applied by the examiner and to the respective viewpoints advanced
by the appellants in the substitute brief and by the examiner in
the answer. These considerations lead us to the conclusions
which follow.
In regard to the anticipation rejection of claim 17, we
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007