Appeal No. 1999-1751 Page 4
Application No. 08/814,299
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hawkswell in view of Claeskens.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 6, mailed September 2, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed February 4, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed December 24, 1998) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
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.
The anticipation issues
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007