Appeal No. 97-1144
Application 08/326,608
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Prodi in view of Nel, as applied to claims 7
through 13 above, further in view of O’Brien.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer
(Paper No. 17), while the complete statement of appellants’
argument can be found in the brief (Paper No 16).
In the brief (page 5), appellants indicate that claim 8
and dependent claims 4, 7, and 9 through 12 stand or fall
together, while independent claim 13 stands or falls alone.
Accordingly, we focus our attention exclusively upon claims 8
and 13, infra.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied
patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the2
2In our evaluation of the applied teachings, we have
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007