Appeal No. 97-1977
Application 07/970,862
Claims 32 through 36, 38, 40 through 45 and 47 through
52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Williams in view of Connell.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full explanation
of the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding that rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 27, mailed
August 26, 1996) and supplemental answer (Paper No. 30, mailed
December 17, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 26,
filed June 11, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 28, filed
October 17, 1996) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007