Appeal No. 1999-0605
Application No. 08/697,214
Claims 7, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sheppard in view of Trimmer and Simons as applied to claims 1, 5 and 6 above, and
further in view of Bast.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full commentary with regard to 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. 16, mailed April 27, 1998) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 15, filed April 2, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed
June 9, 1998) for the 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 consequence of our
review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Trimmer and Simons, we note that the examiner has pointed to Figure 3 of
Trimmer, urging that the support member seen therein is responsive to the subject
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007