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