Appeal No. 1999-2132 Page 3
Application No. 08/672,856
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 10, 12, 13, 20 and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Tekavec in view of Reichental.2
The full text of the examiner's rejections and the
response to the arguments presented by appellants appear in
the answer (Paper No. 17, mailed October 22, 1998), while the
complete statement of appellants’ arguments can be found in
the main brief (Paper No. 16, filed September 21, 1998) and
the reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed December 28, 1998).
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
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we conclude that
the rejections cannot be sustained.
The amendment filed on Sep. 21, 1998, canceling claims 14-19, has been2
entered. Thus, the statement in the answer (page 4) that claims 1, 2, 5-10
and 12-21 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tekavec in view of Reichental
is a typographical error.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007