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 thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007