Appeal No. 1998-1919 Page 3
Application No. 08/620,993
Claims 12-14, 26 and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ursrey in view of Smith.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the first Office action
(Paper No. 2, mailed February 6, 1997) and the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 7, mailed December 18, 1997) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 6, filed September 16,
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.
The anticipation issue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007