Appeal No. 1997-3342
Application No. 08/389,086
(II) claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Vandemoortele;
(III) claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vandemoortele in view of
Robertson; and2
(IV) claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vandemoortele in view of
Robertson.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and the
responses to the arguments presented by appellant appear in
the answer (Paper No. 23, mailed September 2, 1999), while the
complete statement of appellant’s arguments can be found in
the brief (Paper No. 19, filed November 25, 1996).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
The reference to “Claims 5-9" at page 6, line 1 of the answer appears2
to be a typographical error and a reference to claims 5-7 was intended.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007