Appeal No. 96-3616
Application 08/368,857
claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Agnew.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Anderie, Neugebauer and Agnew as applied to claim
3 above, and further in view of Lawlor.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 8, mailed March 28, 1996) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief
(Paper No. 7, filed March 4, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 9,
filed April 24, 1996) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that none of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007