Appeal No. 99-0633 Page 3
Application No. 08/880,247
patenting as being unpatentable over the claim of the design
patent Steeley '600 in view of Sawyer, Corwin and Hines.
(3) Claims 1 and 3 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Levine in view of Corwin and
Hines.
The complete text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by the appellant appears in
the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed September 14, 1998), while
the complete statement of the appellant's argument can be
found in the brief (Paper No. 18, filed August 27, 1998).
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, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Double Patenting Rejections
Regarding rejections (1) and (2), the appellant has not
contested the examiner's position that claims 1 and 3 through
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007