Appeal No. 93-2518
Application 07/696,059
Claims 2-7, 15, 19-21 and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson or Zimmerman in
view of Morrison as applied to claim 1 and further in view of any
one of Taylor, Tsao or Evjen. 2
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and the appellants regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No.
13) and the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 21) for the
examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
Appellants’ Brief (Paper No. 11), Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) and
the Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper No. 22) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions in this case, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ invention as described in
the specification, the appealed claims, to the prior art applied
by the examiner, the evidence submitted by the appellants and to
the respective viewpoints advanced by appellants and the
2It appears that claim 13 was inadvertently left out of
the statement of this rejection. We will assume, as did the
appellants (reply brief at page 3) that claim 13 is included in
this rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007