Appeal No. 2000-0558 Page 4
Application No. 08/912,585
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed June 3, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 17,
filed April 22, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 21, filed
July 27, 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
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
--the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 7 and 9--
We reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7 and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over applicant's admitted
prior art in view of Hakanson.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007