Appeal No. 97-3987 Page 4
Application No. 08/387,047
Claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hippely.
Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hippely.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hippely in view of Goldfarb.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hippely in view of Goldfarb and Langer.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
11, mailed April 24, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper
No. 10, filed March 3, 1997) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007