Appeal No. 1999-0266 Page 4
Application No. 08/290,678
(2) Claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Taigen in view of Creper or Schrieber, and
further in view of Welsand.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 25, mailed May 12, 1996) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 28, mailed November 18, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 27, filed September 23, 1996) 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 references, to the second
declaration of John Schiek dated March 26, 1996 (attached to
Paper No. 23, filed March 29, 1996) and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.
Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007