Appeal No. 1999-1533 Page 3
Application No. 08/666,948
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lachaussee or Mizuta in view of Hollis.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 8, mailed August 18, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 12, filed January 19, 1999) and reply brief (Paper
No. 15, filed May 3, 1999) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.1
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
1We note that the examiner's complete response to the
argument of the appellants set forth in their brief was that
"[n]o further comment is necessary" (Answer, Paper No. 13,
mailed March 3, 1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007