Appeal No. 2000-0909
Application No. 08/784,752
(2) claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 through 11, 15 through 19, 27
through 29 and 31 through 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Nyfeler; and
(3) claims 8 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Nyfeler in view of Craig.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by the appellant appears in the
final rejection (Paper No. 19) and the answer (Paper No. 22),
while the complete statement of the appellant’s argument can
be found in the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 21 and 24,
respectively).
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 have made the
determinations which follow.
2(...continued)
grounds of rejection in the answer is an apparent oversight. See answer, pp.
10 and 11.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007