Appeal No. 1999-1398 Page 3
Application No. 08/559,496
Claims 17-23, 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Wicks, if necessary with DE ‘404 or G ‘340, also
further in view of Dorfel or Ely or Rempel, and EP ‘477.
Claims 25-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Schmitt in view of Wicks, if necessary with DE ‘404 or G ‘340, also further in view of Dorfel
or Ely or Rempel, and Pajula.
Claims 14 and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Schmitt in view of Wicks, if necessary with DE ‘404 or G ‘340, also further in view of
Dorfel or Ely or Rempel, and Laapotti.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 15) 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007