Appeal No. 96-3463
Application 08/514,835
Claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hauk in view
of Schulze-Beckinghausen.
Claims 15, 17, 21 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hauk in view of Wheeler or
Inoue.
The examiner's rejections are explained on pages 2 and 3
of the answer. The arguments of the appellant and examiner in
support of their respective positions may be found on pages 4-10
of the brief, pages 1-3 of the reply brief, pages 3-5 of the
answer and page 2 of the supplemental answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced
by the appellant in the brief and reply brief and by the examiner
in the answer and supplemental answer. This review leads us to
conclude that the prior art relied on by the examiner fails to
establish the obviousness of the appealed subject matter within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007