Ex parte EDWARDS et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 98-1922                                         Page 4           
          Application No. 08/253,721                                                  


               Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                 
          unpatentable over Maeda in view of Ewell.                                   


               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted                
          rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper               
          No. 11, mailed November 28, 1997) for the examiner's complete               
          reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'              
          substitute brief ("brief") for the appellants' arguments                    
          thereagainst.                                                               


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellants' specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by the appellants and the                  
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                      
          determinations which follow.                                                


          The anticipation issues                                                     









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007