Appeal No. 98-2156 Page 3
Application No. 08/421,489
(1) Claims 1, 5-7, 11 and 15-17 as being unpatentable
over Kiley in view of Kimura;
(2) Claims 3, 4, 10 and 18 as being unpatentable over
Kiley in view of Kimura and Lux;
(3) Claim 8 as being unpatentable over Kiley in view of
Kimura and Solomon;
(4) Claims 1, 8 and 9 as being unpatentable over Kiley in
view of Kimura, Solomon and Davis; and
(5) Claims 12-14 as being unpatentable over Kiley in view
of Kimura and Johnson.
The rejections are explained on pages 5-10 of the answer.
The arguments of the appellant and examiner in support of
their respective positions can be found on pages 12-26 of the
brief, pages 1-5 of the reply brief and pages 10-16 of the
answer.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and reply brief, and by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007