Appeal No. 1997-4111 Page 4 Application No. 08/540,947 Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cain. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cain. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cain in view of either Espie or Bartley. 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. 13, mailed June 10, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12, filed March 27, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed July 28, 1997) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst. OPINION In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants' specification andPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007