Appeal No. 1999-1765 Page 4
Application No. 08/839,193
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Nylund, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nylund.
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Jabsen alone or in view of Nylund.
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Nylund and Jabsen.
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 additionally stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Jabsen and Meier.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 24, mailed October 5, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’
brief (Paper No. 23, filed June 23, 1998) and reply brief
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007