Appeal No. 97-4253 Page 4
Application No. 08/385,981
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 12, mailed March 13, 1997) and the supplemental examiner's
answer
(Paper No. 16, mailed June 13, 1997) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11, filed January 24, 1997),
reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed April 21, 1997) and
supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed June 2, 1997)
for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants 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 4, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007