Appeal No. 1996-1877 Application No. 08/149,716 Claims 24-28 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chlosta in view of Natelson or Yamano and further in view of Harris. Claims 29-33, 35 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chlosta in view of Natelson or Yamano and further in view of Fujitsuka and Jakubowski. Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full commentary with regard to the above noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 25, mailed July 19, 1994) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 29, mailed July 7, 1995 ) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 28, received April 20, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 30, received September 11, 1995) for the arguments thereagainst. OPINION In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007