Appeal No. 2000-0487 Page 3
Application No. 08/856,228
Claims 7 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over D'Arques in view of Bekoff.
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over D'Arques in view of Bekoff,
Jones, Chaussadas and Lee.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jones in view of Lee and Chaussadas.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jones in view of Lee, Chaussadas and Whiley.
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. 13,
mailed June 29, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12,
filed May 20, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed
August 20, 1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007