Appeal No. 1998-2011
Application No. 08/707,267
(2) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the German
reference in view of Bauchert, as applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 above, and further in view of
either Schwarzkopf or Harpster.
(3) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the German
reference in view of Bauchert, as applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 above, and further in view of
Churchill.
(4) Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
German reference in view of Bauchert, as applied to claims 1, 7 and 9 above, and further in
view of Fessenden and Porzky.
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 22 and 20) and the final4
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 15 and 18) for the respective positions of the appellant and
the examiner with regard to the merits of these 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 following determinations.
4The appellant filed a "Corrected Brief" on March 19, 1998 to correct informalities in the brief filed
October 16, 1997 (Paper No. 17).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007