Ex parte MACLEOD et al. - Page 5




               Appeal No. 98-0816                                                                                                  
               Application 08/286,287                                                                                              

                       Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103.  As evidence of obviousness, the examiner                   

               relies upon Elsasser in view of Cossette and Tatukawa, further in view of Hoyer-Ellefsen and Kloeppel.              



                       Claims 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103.  As evidence of obviousness, the                     

               examiner relies upon Hishida in view of Silvaggio and Girault.                                                      

                       Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103.  As evidence of obviousness, the examiner                   

               relies upon Connors in view of Schuh, further in view of Hoyer-Ellefsen.                                            

                       Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103.  As evidence of obviousness, the examiner                   

               relies upon Jabbari in view of Tanaka, further in view of Starcevic.                                                

                       Claims 18 to 22 and 37 stand allowed.                                                                       

                       Claims 28, 31 and 32 stand objected to as depending on a rejected base claim (claim 26), and                

               was stated by the examiner as being allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the                

               limitations of its base claim and any intervening claim (claims 27 and 26, respectively).                           

                       Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the Briefs            

               and the Answers for the respective details thereof.                                                                 

                                                            OPINION                                                                

                       In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered                

               appellants’ specification and claims, the applied references, and the respective viewpoints of appellants           

               and the examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we are in general agreement with the examiner                    

                                                                5                                                                  





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007