Appeal No. 1996-4035 Page 4
Application No. 08/257,431
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Schirmer in view of Isaka and Wavin as
set forth above, and further in view of Mathues and the 6
appellant's admission on page 5, line 10 of the specification.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 29,
mailed May 30, 1996) and the supplemental answer (Paper No.
32, mailed September 4, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 27, filed April 1, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No.
30, filed July 30, 1996) 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, and to the respective
6U.S. Patent No. 3,085,608 issued April 16, 1963.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007