Appeal No. 1999-1491
Application No. 08/386,670
claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck and Solin as
applied to claim 17 and further in view of Mueller; claim 21
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Ledesma in view of Deck and Solin as applied to claim 17 and
further in view of Kelly; claim 22 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Ledesma in view of Deck
and Solin as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Burpo;
and claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Ledesma in view of Kelly.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 6, mailed September 24, 1996) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed August 29, 1997) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the
appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed April 23, 1997) and
reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed October 29, 1997) for the
assume that claim 20 is rejected with claims 13 through 17.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007