Ex parte JOHNSTONE - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1997-2839                                                        
          Application No. 08/448,778                                                  
               Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as               
          being unpatentable over Marazzi '684 or Marazzi '467 in view                
          of Nubson and Hanson.                                                       
               Claims 28-31 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as being unpatentable over Marazzi '684 or Marazzi '467 in                  
          view of Nelson, Nyfeler and Hanson.4                                        


               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. 15, mailed March 4, 1997) for the examiner's complete                   
          reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's              
          brief (Paper No. 14, filed December 2, 1996) and reply brief                
          (Paper No. 16, filed May 2, 1997) for the appellant's                       
          arguments thereagainst.5                                                    


                                       OPINION                                        

                                                                                     
          4Nyfeler is applied by the examiner in the final rejection (Paper No. 7), but
          not mentioned in the grounds of rejection (answer, page 13).                
               5We acknowledge appellant's mention (brief, pages 12-13) of Nelson in  
          the context of the July 18, 1995 Decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and
          Interferences in the parent application (application No. 07/829,247).       
          However, Nelson was applied differently and the present circumstances involve
          different claimed subject matter and different prior art.                   

                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007