Appeal No. 1999-2637
Application 08/813,864
as obvious over Botterill, Marisetty, and Clark. Rather than
repeat the arguments of the Appellants and Examiner, we refer
the reader to the Appellants’ Brief and Examiner’s Answer for1 2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of
Appellants and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 17, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Botterill
and Marisetty. We will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2, 5-8, 11-16, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Botterill, Marisetty and Ashkin.
We will also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4,
1Appellants filed an Appeal Brief for Applicants on
August 21, 1998. Appellants filed a Supplemental Appeal Brief
for Applicants (“Brief”) on November 20, 1998.
2The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ Brief, mailed
an Examiner's Answer on May 14, 1999.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007