Appeal No. 1999-1834 Page 3
Application No. 08/876,030
2. Claims 18-20, 22, 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cahn in view of Soltysiak.
3. Claims 27-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Umeda in view of Soltysiak.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
brief (Paper No. 8, filed September 25, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 10, filed December 31, 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. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007