Appeal No. 1999-2368 Page 4
Application No. 08/771,018
Claims 1, 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Clark in view of McClelland.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Spertus, Donle and
Cornelius.
Claims 6 to 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Clark in view of McClelland as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spertus and
Cornelius.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Clark in view of Colbow.
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 May 20, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed April 12, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 11,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007