Appeal No. 2000-1616
Application 08/698,054
and Dewey.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Havins in view of Klammer and Dewey as
applied above, and further in view of Maglica.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Havins in view of Klammer, Dewey and Maglica
as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Painter.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 22, mailed October 15, 1999) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 21,
filed July 14, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007