Ex Parte HAUSER - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2001-0158                                                                  Page 2                
              Application No. 08/873,250                                                                                  


                                                     The prior art                                                        
                    The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                        
             appealed claims is:                                                                                          
             Iwakiri et al. (Iwakiri)                   5,537,325                    Jul. 16,   1996                      
                                                                                                                         



                                                     The rejection                                                        
                    Claims 15 to 26, 29, 30 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                          
             unpatentable over Iwakiri.                                                                                   
                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                     
             appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final rejection                     
             (Paper No. 15, mailed September 9, 1999) and answer (Paper No. 18, mailed February                           
             29, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the                     
             brief (Paper No. 17, filed December 30, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed April                     
             24, 2000) 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 reference, and to the                         









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007