Appeal No. 2000-1612
Application 08/938,844
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bourassa in view of
Thompson.
Claims 2 and 3 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Bourassa in view of
Thompson.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (November 3, 1999) for the reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellant’s brief (September 20, 1999) for
the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007