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,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007