Appeal No. 1999-1979
Application No. 08/758,788
(II) claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fisher;
(III) claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Kenon;
(IV) claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Ebbing, Huggins,
Tucker and Sturm; and
(V) claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huggins in view of Fisher.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 16) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15) for the
appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and
2Fisher was included in the answer as evidence to support the § 103
rejection of claim 29 in response to the language inserted into the claim by
Paper No. 11 (answer, pages 3 and 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007