Appeal No. 2000-2108
Application No. 09/075,943
above, and further in view of Schier.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Carroll in view Lazar as applied to
claim 2 above, and further in view of Pitcher.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 5, mailed April 21, 1999) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 13, mailed May 9, 2000) for the reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed
April 21, 2000) 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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007