Appeal No. 1999-0348 Page 3
Application No. 08/663,471
Claims 12, 13, 19 to 26, 28 and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Laibow.
Claims 15 to 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Laibow in view of Zeitoun.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the first Office action
(Paper No. 2, mailed April 2, 1997) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed August 18, 1998) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 11, filed June 1, 1998) and reply
brief (Paper No. 13, filed October 19, 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007