Appeal No. 97-2776
Application No. 08/252,363
Claims 24 through 29, 31 and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as lacking utility.
Claims 24 through 29, 31 and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of
Lin and Griffin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 101 and § 103
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
7, mailed December 12, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
19, mailed November 27, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 16, filed September 10, 1996) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and 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