Appeal No. 2000-0305 Page 3
Application No. 08/887,453
(4) Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Andersen.
(5) Claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Andersen in view of De Putter.
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 May 7, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 19,
filed February 24, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed
July 2, 1999) 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007