Appeal No. 1999-1991 Page 4
Application No. 08/611,725
applied to claims 1, 10, and 17, respectively above, and
further in view of Reese.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Conklin in view of Carnahan as
applied to claims 1, 10, and 17, respectively above, and
further in view of Meulenberg.
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. 8, mailed December 2, 1997) and the answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed September 28, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 17, filed July 27, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No.
19, filed December 7, 1998) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007