Appeal No. 1998-1775
Application 08/249,611
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nash in view of
Martin as applied to claims 1, 3, and 5 through 8 above, and
further in view of Thomsen.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed September 2, 1997) for the examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 14, filed May 27, 1997) for the appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
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 make the
determinations which follow.
2A rejection of claims 7 through 15, 18 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph was withdrawn in the examiner’s answer (Examiner’s
Answer at page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007