Appeal No. 1999-1816 Page 3
Application No. 08/370,540
Claims 1 to 8, 10, 16, 24 and 30 to 43 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zlotnik in
view of Tisbo.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the
brief (Paper No. 18, filed August 26, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 20, filed January 8, 1999) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.2
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
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
2Since the other ground of rejection set forth in the
final rejection (Paper No. 13, mailed March 31, 1998) was not
set forth in the examiner's answer we assume that this other
ground of rejection has been withdrawn by the examiner.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