Appeal No. 1998-2029 Page 4
Application No. 08/258,643
Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Idris in view of Morris as applied to
claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Staller.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 17,
mailed September 3, 1996) and the supplemental answer (Paper
No. 19, mailed December 11, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief and
reply 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
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claims 7-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007