Ex parte NASVIK et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1997-0635                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/375,183                                                  


               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted                
          rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 34,                  
          mailed September 20, 1996) for the examiner's complete                      
          reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief                    
          (Paper No. 33, filed July 22, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No.              
          36, filed November 27, 1996) for the appellants' arguments                  
          thereagainst.                                                               


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellants' specification and                  
          claims, to the applied references, and to the respective                    
          positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.  As               
          a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which               
          follow.                                                                     


          The obviousness rejections                                                  
               We will not sustain any of the rejections of claims 4 to               
          8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                             









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007