Appeal No. 96-3315
Application 08/209,405
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 10 through 14 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst in view
of Williams and Lutzmann.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding the rejection, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed
June 11, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in sup-
port of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14,
filed February 22, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 16,
filed June 17, 1996) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007