Appeal No. 2000-0322 Page 4
Application No. 08/855,921
Claims 11-14 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Bubien in view of Dunbar as
applied to claims 8 and 20 above, and further in view of
Wilson and Zur.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bubien in view of Dunbar as applied to claim
8 above, and further in view of Christian.
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 and the
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed March 11, 1999) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed December 30, 1998) for
the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007