Appeal No. 1997-3273
Application No. 08/397,910
Bartlett 4,321,477 Mar. 23,
1982
Kimmel 4,850,027 Jul. 18,
1989
Bronikowski et al. 5,163,151 Nov. 10,
1992
(Bronikowski)
Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 6 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bronikowski in view of
Kimmel.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed April 10, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 13, filed January 23, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 15,
filed August 6, 1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
2, and 4 through 6.
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 8-10) that the examiner
has failed to provide appropriate motivation for combining
Bronikowski and Kimmel in rejecting the claims and also
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007