Appeal No. 1997-2828
Application No. 08/087,548
Grounds of Rejection
1. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11 and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over O’Sullivan, Asato and Maienfisch in view of Kieran.
2. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11 and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over O’Sullivan, Asato, Maienfisch and Kieran in view of Abber.
DISCUSSION
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 examiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
Answer for the complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’
Brief for the arguments thereagainst.
In addition, subsequent to the oral hearing of February 6, 2001, we are in receipt
of appellants’ Paper No. 34, entitled “Letter”. As no such paper is provided by our
governing Rules of Practice (37 CFR), and no such paper has been requested by this
Board, the paper is entitled to and will be given no consideration. Ex parte Cillario, 14
USPQ2d at 1079 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989). As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007