Appeal No. 1997-3975
Application No. 08/395,376
disclosure. Claims 9-11 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Shofner.
Finally, claims 13-18 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Shofner in
view of Duncan.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure in this application describes
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007