Appeal No. 98-1252 Page 3
Application No. 08/642,184
(1) Claims 1, 2 and 23 as being unpatentable over Miles in
view of Grussmark and Paulson;
(2) Claims 12, 15, 17 and 22 as being unpatentable over
Cordero in view of White;
(3) Claim 15 as being unpatentable over Paulson in view of
Grussmark;
(4) Claim 16 as being unpatentable over Paulson in view of
Grussmark and White; and
(5) Claim 24 as being unpatentable over Miles in view of
Grussmark.
The rejections are explained on pages 3-8 of the final
rejection. The arguments of the appellant and examiner in
support of their respective positions may be found on pages 7-
25 of the brief, pages 1-5 of the reply brief and pages 5-15 of
the answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and reply brief, and by
the examiner in the answer. As a consequence of this review,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007