Appeal No. 1997-1783
Application No. 08/421,016
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Dannenberg in view of Luitje, further in view of Computer Dictionary.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 20, mailed Aug. 7, 1996) and the letter (Paper No. 23, mailed Dec. 17,
1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief
(Paper No. 19, filed Jul. 22, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed Oct. 15, 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant presents various points of argument throughout the brief and reply brief
and the examiner provides similar arguments in response. We find the major points of
appellant's arguments which need be addressed span pages 2-3 of the reply brief.
Appellant argues that:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007