Appeal No. 98-3291
Application 08/534,705
Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Copenhaver in view of Spinosa.
Claims 8 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Copenhaver in view of Lorenzana.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed September 3, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s supplemental
brief (Paper No. 12, filed May 5, 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007