Appeal No. 2000-2097 Page 3
Application No. 08/852,681
Claims 1, 2, 5, 26, 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zurbuchen '300 in view
of Cooper.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zurbuchen '300 in view of Cooper as applied
above, in further view of Epel.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed March 22, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 18,
filed March 6, 2000) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007