Appeal No. 1997-1319
Application 08/290,227
Cederbaum et al. (Cederbaum I) 5,100,817 Mar. 31, 1992
(filed July 12,
1991)
Cederbaum et al. (Cederbaum II) 5,112,765 May 12, 1992
(filed July 16,
1991)
Claims 26, 2-5, 8, 9, 27, 15, 21, 23, and 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
collective teachings of Guckel and Chiang. All the claims
additionally stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the collective teachings of Guckel, Chiang,
Cederbaum I and Cederbaum II.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007