Appeal No. 2000-0259
Application No. 08/827,835
Claims 19-36, 38, and 39 stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103. With respect to claims 19-21, 23-25, and 29-32, as
evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers, in the alternative,
Sundelin, Waterhouse, or Joliey, each in view of Opoczynski.
Briechle is added to the basic combination with respect to claim
22, and Gomersall is added to the basic combination with respect
to claims 26-28, 33, and 34. As to claims 35, 36, 38, and 39,
the Examiner offers Briechle in view of, in the alternative,
Sundelin, Waterhouse, or Joliey.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 23) and
Answer (Paper No. 24) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejection and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Brief along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007