Appeal No. 1997-2844
Application No. 08/242,881
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Bufano and
Thelen.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16,
mailed July 8, 1996) and the first Supplemental Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 18, mailed October 11, 1996) and the second
Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20, mailed February
20, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 15, filed
May 1, 1996), Reply Brief (Paper No. 17, filed September 9,
1996), and Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper No. 19, filed
December 11, 1996) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 1,
2, 5, and 6 and the obviousness rejection of claim 4 over
Stakely and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 6 over Fujita, Bufano, and Thelen.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007