Appeal No. 97-2019 Page 3
Application No. 08/430,196
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ekman, Wakenshaw and Cuthbertson as applied
to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jordan.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 10, mailed December 13, 1996) and final rejection (Paper
No. 5, mailed May 28, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 9, filed October 21, 1996).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
2A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph was
overcome by an amendment filed subsequent to the Final
Rejection (See Paper No. 8).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007