Appeal No. 1999-1758
Application No. 08/787,971
as being unpatentable over Durfee in view of Nimtz and
Periolat.
Claims 5-7 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Durfee in view of Nimtz and Periolat
as applied to claims 1-4, 8 and 10 above, and further in view
of Nishimura.
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 final
rejection (Paper No. 11, mailed February 4, 1998) and the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 16, mailed December 8, 1998) for
the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s
brief (Paper No. 15, received October 13, 1998) and
appellant’s reply brief (Paper No. 17, received February 17,
1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007