Appeal No. 95-4539 Page 5
Application No. 08/205,394
Claims 2, 7-9, 13-15, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Schoolman in view of Park
‘890. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under § 103 as
unpatentable over Schoolman in view of Park ‘890 further in
view of Park ‘555. Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under § 103
as unpatentable over Schoolman in view of Park ‘890 further in
view of Yang. Claim 11 stands rejected under § 103 as
unpatentable over Schoolman in view of Park ‘890 further in
view of Butterfield. Rather than repeat the arguments of the
appellants or examiner, we refer to the appeal brief and 2
examiner’s answer for the respective details thereof.3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner, and the evidence relied on by the
2 The appellants filed an original appeal brief on April 28, 1995. Responsive
to a letter from the examiner, the appellants filed an amended appeal brief (Paper No.
17) on November 6, 1998. This decision cites to the amended appeal brief rather than to
the original.
3 The examiner’s answer incorporates the rejections set forth in the final Office
action of November 7, 1994 (Paper No. 7).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007