Appeal No. 95-3898
Application 08/156,953
view of Lichtenberg as to claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 8, with the
addition of Kidoh as to claims 4 and 5. 2
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Inasmuch as we are in agreement with the well-reasoned
positions and legal-factual analysis of the teachings of the
references expressed by the examiner in the responsive
arguments portion of the answer beginning at page 6 through
the end of the answer, we will sustain both rejections of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We will not, for the sake of
brevity, repeat that which has been clearly set forth by the
examiner in this portion of the answer. To round-out the
examiner’s detailed art-based analysis of the claimed
invention and teachings and suggestions of the references
relied upon and appellants’ arguments, we add the following.
2As indicated at pages 2 and 10 to 11 of the answer, the
examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claim 8 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007