Appeal No. 96-1462
Application 08/025,189
(German Offenlegungsschrift)
Claims 1-3, 10, 17-20 and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Mercedes-Benz. Claims 1-47 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Mercedes-
Benz in view of Peterson with respect to claims 1-8, 10-20, 22-
25, 27-31, 33, 34, 42, 43 and 47, and adds Rose with respect to
claims 9, 21, 26, 32, 35-41 and 44-46.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants' arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the disclosure of Mercedes-Benz does not fully meet the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007