Appeal No. 2001-0483 Page 4
Application No. 08/996,842
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hoffmann.
Claims 2 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Harz in view of Fisher.
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. 16,4
mailed June 2, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15,
filed March 14, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed
August 7, 2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
4Since the other grounds of rejection set forth in the
final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed October 7, 1999) were not
set forth in the examiner's answer we assume that these other
grounds of rejection have been withdrawn by the examiner. See
Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007