Appeal No. 97-2615 Page 5
Application No. 08/293,681
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Walkhoff in view of Marega.
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 19, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 9, filed November 25, 1996) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
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.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 5, 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007