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