Appeal No. 97-0391
Application 08/443,044
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the Appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
It is our view that claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 are anticipated
by Zinkann and that claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10 are anticipated
by Malik. Claims 3 and 5 are obvious over Malik and Durst.
However, claims 11 and 12 are unobvious over Malik, Durst and
Doyle. Accordingly, we affirm in part.
We now consider the various rejections. In our analysis,
we are guided by the precedence of our reviewing court that
the limitations from the disclosure are not to be imported
2A supplemental brief was filed as paper no. 21. However,
it merely corrected the informal deficiencies in the original
brief and presented no further arguments.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007