Appeal No. 97-0739
Application 08/163,265
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of
Sturges and Goldstein as applied to claim 12 above, and further
in view of Richman.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith in view of Sturges and Goldstein as
applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Schmidt.3
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14, mailed August 16, 1996) and to the supplemental
examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed September 6, 1996) for
the examiner's reasoning in support of the above-noted
rejections. Appellants' arguments against the examiner's
rejections are found in appellants' brief (Paper No. 13, filed
June 3, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed August 26,
1996).
OPINION
3As to the rejections listed as issues (g) through (k)
on page 6 of appellants' brief, the examiner has made clear on
pages 15-16 of the answer (Paper No. 14) that those rejections
have now been withdrawn.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007