Ex parte DANNENBERG - Page 4

              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.                                                                      

                     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:                                                                                       


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007