Ex parte PLOMER - Page 4




                 Appeal No. 1998-2275                                                                                     Page 4                        
                 Application No. 08/428,253                                                                                                             


                          Claims 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                                                                          
                 being unpatentable over Hartog in view of either Korhonen or                                                                           
                 Elvidge.                                                                                                                               


                          Claims 27, 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103                                                                     
                 as being unpatentable over Hartog in view of Alheid.                                                                                   


                          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. 18,                  2                                                         
                 mailed July 17, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                                                                         
                 support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 14,                                                                             
                 filed June 13, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed                                                                              
                 September 19, 1997) for the appellant's arguments                                                                                      
                 thereagainst.                                                                                                                          


                                                                     OPINION                                                                            




                          2The answer does not appear to have been signed by a                                                                          
                 primary examiner as required by 37 CFR  1.193 and Manual of                                                                           
                 Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)  1208.                                                                                              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007