Appeal No. 1998-1603 Page 4
Application No. 08/428,940
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mick in view of Kageyama and Devine as
applied above, and further in view of Kaufman.
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. 8, mailed January 7, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 7, filed October 10, 1996) for the
appellant’s arguments against the rejections.
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.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mick in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007