Ex parte GRIMM et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1997-3797                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/121,820                                                  


               Claims 25 to 28, 31 to 33, 35 and 37 to 41 stand rejected              
          under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Miripol in                 
          view of one of Ryan or Bujan, further in view of Vazquez,                   
          Cooke and Brown.                                                            


               Claims 29, 30, 34 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
           103 as being unpatentable over Miripol, Ryan or Bujan,                    
          Vazquez, Cooke and Brown as applied to claims 25 to 28, 31 to               
          33 and 35 above, and further in view of Daly and the                        
          appellants' admitted prior art.                                             


               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted                
          rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 25,                  
          mailed May 13, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in               
          support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 23,                  
          filed February 4, 1997) for the appellants' arguments                       
          thereagainst.                                                               


                                       OPINION                                        









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

Last modified: November 3, 2007