Ex parte MARTIS et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1999-0342                                                                                       
              Application 08/184,813                                                                                     



                     Claims 1-22 are illustrative of the claims on appeal and read as in the attached                    
              appendix of pending claims as originally presented with the Appeal Brief.                                  


              The prior art reference relied upon by the examiner is:                                                    
              Eur. Pat. Appl.                           0 207 676                    Jan. 7, 1987                        
              (Alsop)                                                                                                    

              Ground of Rejection                                                                                        
                     Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Alsop.                                        


                                                     DISCUSSION                                                          
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the                         
              appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the                       
              respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.                                       
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                   
              appellants regarding the noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's Answer for                   
              the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’ Brief and Reply               
              Brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.  As a consequence of our review, we                      
              make the determinations which follow.                                                                      



                                                           2                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007