Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 4
Application No. 08/132,940
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bowers in view of Ensslin and
Rexroth.
Claims 9 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bowers in view of Ensslin, Rexroth
and Auth.2
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bowers in view of Ensslin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the rejections, we
make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed
August 21, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed February 10, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
2We note that while the examiner's answer (p. 5) does not
contain a statement of this rejection, it does contain (p. 6)
the same determination of obviousness based on Auth set forth
in the final rejection (pp. 3-4). Accordingly, we will use
the statement of this rejection as set forth in the final
rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007