Appeal No. 1997-4044 Page 3
Application No. 08/504,233
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 to 11 and 13 to 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maas in view of
either Boxmeyer or Davis.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maas in view of either Boxmeyer or Davis as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muto.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maas in view of either Boxmeyer or Davis as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bledsoe.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 4, mailed October 4, 1996) and the answer (Paper No. 9,
mailed April 25, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 8,
filed March 17, 1997) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007