Appeal No. 1998-2945 Page 4
Application No. 08/624,734
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Isham.
Claims 7 and 12 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Isham in view of Diesing.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 10, mailed April 14, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 9, filed January 6, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 11, filed June 15, 1998) 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, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon
evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007