Appeal No. 1998-2314 Page 3
Application No. 07/902,957
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(1) Claims 1, 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, 36 and 37 on the basis of Brandberg ‘045 in view of
Roccaforte, Mendenhall, Ylvisaker, Winter, Hirtzler, Reese, Burkes, Clark, Miller, Panzer,
Stoner and Walker.
(2) Claims 27 and 29-31 on the basis of the references applied against claim 1 et al. taken
further in view of Brandberg ‘425.
(3) Claims 28 and 38 on the basis of the references applied against claim 27 et al. taken
further in view of Watkins and Bohrer.
(4) Claims 25 and 32 on the basis of the references applied against claim 1 et al. taken
further in view of Larson.
(5) Claims 39 and 40 on the basis of the references applied against claim 38 taken further
in view of Larson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 26) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
Corrected Appeal Brief (Paper No. 23) 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007