Appeal No. 2000-0321 Page 4
Application No. 08/834,578
Claims 6-9, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Rigandi in view of Arrowsmith
'306 or
Arrowsmith '523 and Lobel as applied above, and further in
view of Meyer.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rigandi in view of Arrowsmith '306 or
Arrowsmith '523 and Lobel as applied above, and further in
view of Gilkerson.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rigandi in view of Arrowsmith '306 or
Arrowsmith '523, Lobel and Gilkerson as applied above, and
further in view of Brown.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 48,
mailed June 28, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007