Appeal No. 1998-0234
Application No. 08,406,752
b) claims 18, 44 through 53 and 56 through 60 under § 103
as being unpatentable over Boggess in view of Kornelson as
applied above, and further in view of Slavsky;
c) claim 55 under § 103 as being unpatentable over
Boggess in view of Kornelson as applied to claim 54 above, and
further in view of Potter (the German Patent).
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 examiner's answer (Paper
No. 21, mailed August 21, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper
No. 19, filed June 9, 1997) 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007