Appeal No. 1999-1454 Page 4
Application No. 08/596,343
Lin 5,222,014 Jun. 22,
1993 Karabatsos et al 5,469,330 Nov.
21, 1995
(Karabatsos) (effectively filed Feb. 14, 1994)
Admitted prior art relied upon by the examiner2
Hosen 2264389 A (GB) Aug. 25, 1993
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Hosen taken together with Lin.
Claims 10 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art, Hosen and Lin,
and further in view of Karabatsos.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 15, mailed July 20, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 14, filed March 27, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 17, filed September 23, 1998) for the appellants'
2The examiner is not specific as to the specific location of the
admitted prior art in the specification. We consider the admitted prior art
to be found on page 1, line 8 through page 2, line 4 of the specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007