Appeal No. 1998-2541
Application No. 08/608,372
The examiner relies on the following references:
Moe 5,345,430 Sep. 6, 1994
Logan et al. (Logan) 5,371,551 Dec. 6, 1994
Claims 9, 12, 15-17 and 19-21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Moe.
Claims 2 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Moe in view of Logan.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007