Appeal No. 2000-0941 Page 4
Application No. 09/077,362
Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cadmus.
Claims 3, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Koller.3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed January 13, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12,
filed November 3, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed
March 7, 2000) 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
3On page 4 of the answer, the examiner inadvertently
included claim 6 in this ground of rejection. However, claim
6 was canceled subsequent to the final rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007