Appeal No. 98-2187
Application 08/051,033
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 25, mailed
November 10, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
24, filed June 23, 1997) for appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review we have reached the determinations
which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 62, 64 through 67, 70 through 77, 79, 80, 84 through 93
and 95 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007