Appeal No. 95-4134
Application 08/099,090
over Woodriff in view of Ciarcia; and
e) claims 1, 2 and 14 through 16 as being unpatentable
over Loudon in view of Ciarcia.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9, mailed March
8, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 8, filed
January 30, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed May 1,
1995) 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 determinations
which follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007