Appeal No. 97-2783
Application 08/388,089
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Morscher in view of Serbousek.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 9, mailed September 25, 1996) and to the
supplemental answer (Paper No. 11, mailed December 19, 1996) for
the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant's brief (Paper No. 8, filed June 28, 1996) and reply
brief (Paper No. 10, filed November 27, 1996) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4
through 11, 13 and 15 under § 102(b) based on Morscher, we are in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007