Appeal No. 96-3480 Page 4
Application No. 08/142,381
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 15, mailed December 14, 1995) and the supplemental
examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed January 15, 1997) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed October 30,
1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed January 29, 1996)
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. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claim 1
We sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007