Appeal No. 1999-0737
Application 08/655,176
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23-25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Stamper in view of Spirg, Takahara and appellants’ admitted prior art.
Claims 12, 13, 18-20, 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Stamper, Spirg, Takahara and appellants’ admitted prior art as applied above, and, further in view
of Wahl.2
Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement of the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 15, mailed July 27, 1998) for the examiner’s reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14, filed June 4, 1998) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references and admissions, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants’ and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made
the determinations which follow.
2As indicated in the advisory action mailed May 1, 1998 the §112, second paragraph, rejection
of claims 1-29 has been overcome by the revised amendment filed March 30, 1998 (Paper No. 10).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007