Ex parte ESPIE et al. - Page 4




          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 and                  







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007