Appeal No. 1999-0080
Application No. 08/558,929
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sherer in view of Arnold. Claims 16 and 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer and Arnold in view of Schmidt.
Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sherer
and Arnold in view of Mitani.
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. 23, mailed Feb. 27, 1998) and the examiner's action (Paper No. 15,
mailed Sep. 16, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellants’ brief (Paper No. 22, filed Dec. 8, 1997) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
As evidence of obviousness the examiner relies on the teachings of Sherer in
combination with the teachings of Arnold to suggest the obviousness of the invention as
recited in independent claims 21-26.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007