Appeal No. 1999-2666 Page 3
Application No. 08/565,584
Claims 1-8, 14-16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lanier in view of Okada.
Claims 11-13 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lanier in view of Okada, and further
in view of Mott. Claims 17 and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lanier in view of
Okada, and further in view of Eisen. Claims 18 and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lanier in view of Okada,
further in view of Mott and Pierce.
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. 17, mailed March 2, 1999) and the final rejection (Paper
No. 11, mailed June 9, 1998) for the examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’
brief (Paper No. 16, filed January 19, 1999) and reply brief
(Paper No. 18, filed April 27, 1999) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst. Only those arguments actually made by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007