Appeal No. 1999-1524 Page 4
Application No. 08/938,051
Claims 1 to 3, 14, 15, 22, 24, 26 and 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Linden in
view of van den Bergh and Gyger.
Claims 4 to 8 and 28 to 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Linden in view of van den
Bergh, Gyger and Jacksch.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 13, mailed July 20, 1998) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 18, mailed January 11, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 17, filed December 18, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007