Appeal No. 1997-4118
Application No. 08/381,814
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brunnhofer in view of Nawrot as applied to
claim 9 above, and further in view of Kerschbaumer.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Brunnhofer in view of Nawrot "as
applied to claims 9 and 11 above," and further in view of
Hart.2
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed May 21, 1997) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper
No. 15, filed April 21, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 18,
filed July 18, 1997) for the arguments thereagainst.
2To the extent that claims 13 and 14 are dependent from
claim 11, we understand this rejection to actually involve the
combination of Brunnhofer in view of Nawrot and Kerschbaumer
as applied to claim 11, taken further in view of Hart.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007