Appeal No. 1996-1577
Application No. 08/215,205
Sievers 4,950,963 Aug. 21, 1990
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 18 and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Helmuth. Claims 7
and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Helmuth in view of Niimi. Finally, claims
11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Helmuth in view of Sievers.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the prior
art evidence relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007