Appeal No. 96-1293
Application 07/998,673
Claims 7, 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ziegelman in view of Patena and Paul
as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Morton.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ziegelman in view of Patena as applied to
claim 1 above, and further in view of Misawa.
Reference is made to the final rejection (Paper No. 11,
mailed October 28, 1994) and to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 17, mailed August 11, 1995) for the examiner's full reasoning
in support of the above-noted rejections and to appellant's
brief (Paper No. 16, filed June 28, 1995) and reply brief (Paper
No. 18, filed September 19, 1995) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this
appeal has included a careful assessment of appellant's
specification and claims, the applied prior art references, and
the respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007