Appeal No. 2000-1479 Page 3
Application No. 08/915,355
Claims 4 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Roman in view of Davis.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 6, mailed July 20, 1999) and the answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed January 31, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12,
filed November 12, 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.
The anticipation rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007