Appeal No. 97-3007 Page 4
Application No. 08/161650
16 above, and further in view of either of Plantier or
Santosuosso.
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. 18, mailed March 17, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 16, filed July 24, 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 the examiner’s rejections of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Medler in view of
Randolph or Allen’563 or Kittaka or Hale or Fondiller. We
initially note that in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007