Appeal No. 97-0519
Application 08/291,719
Claims 10, 17, 19 and 42 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, Heffer and
Benedict as applied to the above-noted claims, and further in
view of Dosch.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those rejec-
tions, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
15, mailed November 12, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in
support
of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 14,
filed August 19, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed
January 16, 1997) 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007