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