Appeal No. 1997-4013 Page 4
Application No. 08/145,867
Claims 26 to 33 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Bruder in view of Saumsiegle.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed May 13, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the revised brief (Paper No.
17, filed February 10, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 19,
filed July 17, 1997) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
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
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejections
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007