Appeal No. 98-1207 Page 7
Application No. 08/420,648
Claims 22, 34 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Downey in view of Bishop and
Gellhaus.
In reaching our decision in this appeal on the rejection
of claims 17 through 24 and 32 through 41 under 35 U.S.C. §
103, 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
in the brief (Paper No. 12, filed March 17, 1997) and reply
brief (Paper No. 14, filed August 5, 1997) and the examiner in
the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed June 5, 1997). Upon
evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion
that the evidence adduced by the examiner is sufficient to
establish obviousness with respect to claims 17 through 24 and
32 through 41. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejections of claims 17 through 24 and 32 through 41 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007