Appeal No. 1998-0931 Page 4
Application No. 08/139,619
over Hedges in view of Tillery as applied to claims 15 and 18-
20 above, and further in view of Yamamura.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 32, mailed August 5, 1996) and supplemental examiner's
answer (Paper No. 34, mailed January 7, 1997) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 31, filed May 13, 1996)
and reply brief (Paper No. 33, filed October 9, 1996) and
supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 35, filed February 12,
1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants' arguments
set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's rationale in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007