Appeal No. 1998-0331
Application No. 08/297,257
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10 through 12 and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Acme in view of DT '799
and Burka.
Claims 5 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Acme in view of DT '799 and Ledergerber.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 9) and to the answer (Paper No. 17) for the examiner’s
complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
brief (Paper
No. 16) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
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. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10 through 12 and 14
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007