Appeal No. 97-1810 Page 4
Application No. 08/321,262
Claims 22, 23 and 26 through 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Merrill in view of
Munoz Saiz, Danek and Zagouris.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14, mailed December 11, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 12, filed September 9, 1996) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The rejection of claims 21, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007