Appeal No. 97-2606 Page 4
Application No. 08/017,568
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hack in view of Huiskes.
Claims 4, 5, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hack in view of Huiskes and either
Feiler or Tornier.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 15, mailed June 26, 1995), the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 24, mailed June 25, 1996) and the examiner's answer to
reply brief (Paper No. 26, mailed December 10, 1996) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 23, filed March 1,
1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 25, filed August 22, 1996)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007