Appeal No. 2000-1487 Page 3
Application No. 08/786,373
Godbersen Des. 314,735 Feb. 19, 1991
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koch in view of Barry.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koch
in view of Barry and Lamparter.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koch
in view of Barry and Chudzik.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koch
in view of Barry and Godbersen.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Koch in view of Barry and Rubin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper
No. 19) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief
and reply brief (Paper Nos. 18 and 22) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007