Appeal No. 1998-2309 Page 3
Application No. 08/277,035
Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by, or in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Swartz.
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. 22, mailed October 23, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
brief (Paper No. 21, filed August 4, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 23, filed December 24, 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
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007