Appeal No. 1997-2032
Application 08/229,278
being unpatentable over Baxter in view of Hug, Scotti and
Otema as applied above, and further in view of Jones.
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 13)
and supplemental examiner’s answers (Paper Nos. 15 and 17) for
the examiner's reasoning in support of these rejections and to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12), reply brief (Paper No. 14)
and various supplemental reply briefs (Paper Nos. 16 and 18)
for the arguments thereagainst.
After carefully reviewing the obviousness issues raised
in this appeal in light of appellant's specification and
claims, the teachings of the applied prior art references, and
the respective viewpoints presented by appellant and the
examiner, it is our determination that the rejections of
appealed claims 7 through 14 posited by the examiner are not
well founded. Accordingly, those rejections will not be
sustained. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007