Appeal No. 95-1994
Application 07/732,493
Claims 1 to 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Lalonde in
view of Andermo.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For all the reasons expressed by the examiner in the
answers, and for the additional reasons presented here, we
will sustain the prior art rejection of claims 1 to 5 and 7
through 10. Inasmuch as we are in agreement with the well-
reasoned positions and legal-factual analysis of the teachings
of the references done by the examiner, for the sake of
brevity we will not repeat that which has been clearly set
forth in the answer. To round out the examiner’s detailed
analysis of the claimed invention and appellants’ arguments,
we add the following, including our reasons for reversing the
rejection of dependent claims 6, 11 and 12.
As noted earlier, the examiner’s rejection is based in
part upon Lalonde. This reference is discussed in detail as a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007