Appeal No. 2001-0528 Page 3
Application No. 08/892,348
(3) Claims 26 to 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Schonert in view of Kofahl and Wilson.
(4) Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Schonert in view of Kofahl and
Coulthard.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
brief (Paper No. 14, filed August 9, 2000) and reply brief
(Paper No. 16, filed December 26, 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
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007