Ex parte KLOMP - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2000-0820                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/978,625                                                  


               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. 9,                    
          mailed December 7, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning              
          in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 8,                 
          filed November 15, 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                  
          claim, 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 only rejection made by the examiner is that of claim               
          1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over White in              
          view of any of DeVrou, Quinn or Coviello.  The appellant                    
          contends that the proposed combination by the examiner is                   
          improper “due to the diversity of technologies in the                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007