Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 4
Application No. 08/094,461
Claims 3, 8, 16 through 19, 21, 25 and 35 through 37
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Raymond in view of Jeppson, McEachern and McConnell.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 18, mailed November 15, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 17, filed September 12, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 19, filed January 17, 1997) 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007