Appeal No. 97-1840 Page 4
Application No. 08/316,685
Claims 5 through 8, 12 and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Andrä in view of
Withers.
Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Andrä in view of Pichl.
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. 12, mailed November 7, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 9, filed June 24, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed November 27, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007