Appeal No. 96-3157 Page 4
Application 08/088,136
fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for
failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous
claim.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 to 12 and 19 to 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 24, mailed January 29, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 22, filed December 18, 1995) and reply brief
(Paper No. 25, filed March 29, 1996) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007