Appeal No. 1999-0226 Page 4
Application No. 08/447,217
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Tautvydas or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Tautvydas
in view of Scopelianos.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13 to 15 and 17 to 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Tautvydas as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 16
above, and further in view of Van Aken Redinger.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tautvydas as applied in the rejection of
claim 16 above, and further in view of Cohen.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Schäpel.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed March 11, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007