Appeal No. 98-0103 Page 3
Application No. 08/248,745
Claims 10 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kluck in view of the absorptive materials
admitted on page 7 of the specification to be well known.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103 and § 112
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
18, mailed March 12, 1997), the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 21, mailed June 5, 1997) and the second supplemental
examiner's answer (Paper No. 23, mailed July 2, 1997) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 17, filed February 12, 1997),
reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed May 9, 1997) and supplemental
reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed June 24, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007