Appeal No. 97-0181
Application No. 08/245,613
Klancnik. Claims 13-16, 18, 20 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Longacre in view of DeForest. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Longacre in view of DeForest further in view of
Klancnik. Claims 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Batterman in view of Longacre further in view of DeForest and Klancnik.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 8, mailed Aug. 7, 1996) for the Examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 7, filed Jun. 17, 1996) and
reply brief (Paper No. 9, filed Oct. 10, 1996) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
In our view, the Examiner's analysis is sufficiently reasonable and complete in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007