Appeal No. 1999-2456 Page 3
Application No. 08/655,649
Claims 1, 2 and 7 to 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Heintz in view of Easterbrook
and the admitted prior art of an MG automobile.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
6, mailed October 14, 1997) and the answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed November 25, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper
No. 12, filed July 16, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 14,
filed February 1, 1999) 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
2While the admitted prior art of an MG automobile was not
set forth in the statement of this rejection, it is clear from
our reading of this rejection that the examiner has relied
upon the admitted prior art of an MG automobile in making this
rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007