Appeal No. 97-1366
Application No. 08/281,318
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McEwen in view of
McFarland and Olsson.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McEwen, McFarland
and Olsson, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further
in view of O'Donnell.
Reference is made to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 30)
and to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 32) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007