Appeal No. 96-3494
Application 08/160,299
same invention as claims 1-9, 40-48 and 79-93 of copending
application Serial No. 08/160,111. Claims 1, 7-10, 16-18 and
31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the teachings of Chu and Vassiliadis. Finally, claims
19-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the teachings of Chu, Vassiliadis and Pfeiffer.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness and double patenting relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellants' arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner's rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner's answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007