Appeal No. 1998-1610
Application No. 08/551,319
unpatentable over Thorn in view of Spann and further in view
of Hargest.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Thorn in view of Spann and further in view
of Saviez.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Thorn in view of Spann and further in
view of Padjen.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and the
responses to the arguments presented by appellant appear in
the answer
(Paper No. 12), while the complete statement of appellant's
arguments can be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 9 and 13, respectively).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007