Appeal No. 96-3021
Application 08/104,452
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over “each of Cox, Sargeant et al in view of Hoie
and Hawley et al each in view of the state of the art admitted
by applicant at page 2, lines 3-18 of the written description”
(answer, page 3 [sic, page 4]).
Claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 8 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ester in view of
Majors.
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full explanation
of the basis for the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 16, mailed February 20, 1996) for the examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief
(Paper No. 12, filed October 2, 1995) for appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered appellant’s specification and claims, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007