Appeal No. 1998-1716 Page 3
Application No. 08/526,942
Claims 16, 17 and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Myers in view of any one of
Scholz, Stout, Williams, Vaughan, Wolfe, Ham, Bryant or
Atterbury, or vice versa, any one of Scholz, Stout, Williams,
Vaughan, Wolfe, Ham, Bryant or Atterbury, each in view of
Myers.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed December 11, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper
No. 13, filed September 4, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No.
17, filed February 9, 1998) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007