Appeal No. 95-2346
Application 08/147,093
applied in (1) above, and further in view of Smith;2
(6) Claims 13, 14 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dean in view of Bellis in
combination with either Cannistra or Malachowski and Smith as
applied in (5) above, further in view of Cummings;
(7) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dean in view of Bellis in combination
with
either Cannistra or Malachowski and Smith and Cummings as
applied in (6) above, further in view of Kroner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 13) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16) for the
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
2We call attention to a problem with the language of claim 12, para.
(n), "positioning said rear panel onto said second side of said rear panel"
should read --positioning said rear panel onto said second side of said front
panel--. Correction of this error is in order upon return of this application
to the jurisdiction of the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007