Appeal No. 1998-2590
Application No. 08/255,083
Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Powers
and Shealy as applied above, and further in view of Bahder.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 20, mailed September 15, 1997) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s
brief (Paper No. 19, filed August 18, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 21, filed November 28, 1997) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007