Appeal No. 97-0149
Application 08/308,711
being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Mori, Perlmutter and
Vinck.
Claims 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ellis in view of Mori, Perlmutter, Vinck and
McKnight.
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-
8 of the brief, page 1 of the reply brief and pages 3-5 of the
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. This review leads us to conclude
that the prior art relied on by the examiner establishes the
obviousness of the subject matter defined by claims 1 and 2
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 and, accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims. We
will not, however, sustain the rejection of claims 3-5 under
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007