Appeal No. 96-2712
Application 08/313,548
Claims 1, 3 through 5, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Coit in view of Clark or Standal.
Claims 1, 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jory in view of Coit.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over "the art as applied to claim 1" (answer, page 4).
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 23,
mailed March 6, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the above-noted rejections and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 22,
filed December 18, 1995) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this appeal
has included a careful assessment of appellants' specification and
claims, the applied prior art references, and the respective
positions advanced by appellants and the examiner. As a conse-
quence of our review, we will sustain the examiner's rejections of
the appealed claims. Our reasoning follows.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007