Appeal No. 1998-0724
Application No. 08/231,287
1
Claims 1, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Walsh in view of DiLascia. Claims 2-4, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Walsh and DiLascia further in view of Lefor.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed Mar. 14, 1997) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 20, mailed Jun. 2, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 16, filed Feb. 11, 1997), reply brief
(Paper No. 18, filed May 19, 1997) and supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed Jul.
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.
1We note that the examiner merely cut and pasted the final rejection into the answer without
correcting the claims that are rejected. Claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13 have been canceled by the after final
amendment filed Sep. 23, 1996. In an advisory action, mailed Oct. 2, 1996, the examiner indicated that the
amendment would be entered upon filing of the appeal, but the amendment has not been officially entered
at this time. We shall address only those claims remaining in the case after entry of the amendment.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007