Appeal No. 97-0990 Page 4
Application No. 08/105,093
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Voitik in view of Smetana as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Meyer.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Voitik in view of Smetana and Meyer as applied
to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nicholson.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Voitik in view of Smetana, Meyer, Pottharst and
Andresen.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Voitik in view of Smetana, Meyer, Pottharst,
Andresen and Lojkutz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the § 103 rejections,
we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed
September 15, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16,
mailed September 19, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007