Appeal No. 1997-4285 Page 3
Application No. 08/420,852
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pahmeier in view of Capella and Nugent as
applied above, and further in view of Landreth.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 7, mailed August 9, 1996) and the answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed April 2, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9,
filed January 16, 1997) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007