Appeal No. 1998-2418
Application No. 08/686,883
Claims 31 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over appellant's disclosed prior art in
view of Jones and further in view of Lane and Burtis.
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. 14, mailed February 28, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 10, filed January 12, 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
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the examiner's rejection of claims 21
through 26 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 should not be
sustained and the examiner's rejection of claims 11 and 21
through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be affirmed-in-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007