Ex parte DUESTERHOEFT et al. - Page 5




                 Appeal No. 1997-3403                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/032,889                                                                                                             


                          The Examiner relies on the following references:                                                                              
                 Smith                                                 4,624,514                                    Nov. 25,                            
                 1986                                                                                                                                   
                 Rodrigues et al. (Rodrigues)                                   5,101,079                           Mar. 31,                            
                 1992                                                                                                                                   
                          Claims 1 to 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                                                                        
                 being obvious over Smith and Rodrigues.                                                                                                
                          Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the                                                                        
                 Examiner, we make reference to the briefs  and the answer for                2                                                         
                 the respective details thereof.                                                                                                        
                 OPINION                                                                                                                                
                          We have considered the rejections advanced by the                                                                             
                 Examiner and the supporting arguments.  We have, likewise,                                                                             
                 reviewed the Appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs.                                                                            
                          We affirm-in-part.                                                                                                            
                          In our analysis, we are guided by the general proposition                                                                     
                 that in an appeal involving a rejection under 35 U.S.C.  103,                                                                         


                          2A first reply brief was filed as paper no. 14 and a                                                                          
                 second reply brief was filed as paper no. 16.  Both were                                                                               
                 denied entry, see paper nos. 15 and 17.  However, the second                                                                           
                 was entered after a petition to the Commissioner, see paper                                                                            
                 no. 20.                                                                                                                                
                                                                           5                                                                            





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007