Appeal No. 1999-0281 Page 3
Application No. 08/629,727
Claims 1 to 5, 7 to 11, 13 to 18 and 20 to 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kolbus in view of Chaw, Miki and Galasso.
Claims 6, 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kolbus in view of Chaw, Miki and
Galasso and further in view of Pasin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 12, mailed May 20, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 11, filed April 28, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed June 15, 1998) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007