Appeal No. 1998-1524 Page 4
Application No. 08/355,926
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of
Dakin and Wickersheim.
Claims 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over APA in view of Dakin, Wickersheim and
Hartl.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 7, mailed March 21, 1997) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed December 10, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 12, filed September 3, 1997) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007