Appeal No. 1996-3367 Page 3
Application No. 08/480,554
Claims 1-10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Böttger in view of Berkowitz and 1
Di Fiore.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the specification, claims and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 and 13 is well
founded, but not the rejection, on the same grounds, of claim
7. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the applied prior art for substantially
those fact findings and conclusions set forth in the answer
and as further discussed below. However, we will not sustain
the examiner's § 103 rejection as applied to claim 7. Our
reasons follow.
1All subsequent references in this opinion to Böttger are
references to the English language translation of the
published German Offenlegungsschrift of record. A copy of the
translation will be forwarded to appellants together with a
copy of this decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007