Appeal No. 1998-3081
Application No. 08/587,292
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Andres et al. (Andres) DE 35 09 054 Apr. 24, 1986
Jenkins, R.O., “Contact bounce in dry reed relays,” PROC. IEE, Vol. 114, No. 11,
pp. 1617-1622, Nov. 1967.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Andres in view of Jenkins.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final rejection
(Paper No. 14, mailed Dec. 5, 1997) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 18, mailed
Apr. 3, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 17, filed Mar. 23, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed Apr. 16, 1998)
for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007