Appeal No. 1997-0174 Page 4
Application No. 08/302,207
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art in view
of Schirm and Jones.
Claims 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the Admitted Prior Art in view of
Schirm and Jones as applied to claim 4 above, and further in
view of Krumhansl.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed July 24, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed June 10, 1996) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007