Appeal No. 1998-0923
Application No. 08/514,718
The Examiner relies on the following prior art
references:1
Beatty et al. (Beatty) 4,377,769 Mar. 22,
1983
Morimoto et al. (Morimoto) 4,582,210 Apr. 15,
1986
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of
Beatty and Appellants’ admissions as to the prior art.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answers for the 2
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
1The Examiner also relies on Appellants’ admissions as to
the prior art described at pages 2 and 3 of the specification
and illustrated in Figure 6 of Appellants’ drawings.
2The Appeal Brief was filed March 25, 1997. In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated June 23, 1997, a Reply Brief
was filed June 30, 1997 to which the Examiner responded with a
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated October 30, 1997. The
Examiner submitted a further Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
dated December 8, 1997 in response to Appellants’ Supplemental
Reply Brief filed November 14, 1997.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007