Appeal No. 2001-0342 Page 3
Application No. 08/677,707
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Tash.
Claims 2, 4, 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Tash.
Claims 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tash in view of Schacht.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tash, Reeves and Tomlinson.
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. 21,
mailed June 5, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 20,
filed April 24, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed
August 7, 2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007