Appeal No. 1998-2777
Application 08/477,226
Claims 1 through 3, 8 through 10, 12 through 18, 23 through 25, 27 through 29 and 32 through
36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Klebe.
Claims 4 through 7, 11, 19 through 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Klebe in view of Cima '380.
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klebe.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full commentary with regard to the above-noted
rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed June 20, 1997) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed March 31, 1997)
for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007