Appeal No. 97-2222
Application 08/380,661
1976
Hallock (Hallock '802) 4,031,802 Jun. 28,
1977
Claims 12, 14, 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Atwell.
The examiner’s rejection is explained on page 3 of the
final rejection. The arguments of the appellant and examiner
in
support of their respective positions may be found on pages 4-
8 of the brief and pages 4-6 of the answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and by the examiner in
the answer. As a consequence of this review, we will (1)
sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 14, (2) reverse the
rejection of claims 15 and 17 and (3) pursuant to our
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007