Appeal No. 1999-1529 Page 4
Application No. 08/366,985
Claims 1 and 41 to 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Harding or
Yokota.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cranko.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed December 7, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 19,
filed October 26, 1998) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.3
OPINION
3Since the obviousness-type double patenting rejection
set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 15, mailed
December 17, 1997) was not set forth in the examiner's answer
we conclude that this ground of rejection has been withdrawn
by the examiner. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd.
App. 1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007