Appeal No. 97-2822
Application 08/455,900
c) claims 12 and 15 as being unpatentable over Emberson
as applied to claims 10 and 11 above, and further in view of
Seewack; and
d) claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 as being unpatentable over
Morris in view of Mayer.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
28, mailed March 4, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 27, filed
January 21, 1997) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007