Appeal No. 2001-0651
Application 08/134,187
Claims 70 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Copley in view of Bradshaw, Prinz and
AAPA as applied above, and further in view of Beinbrech.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 28, mailed November
8, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 27, filed October
20, 2000) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Before addressing the rejections before us on appeal, we
observe that appellants have set forth, on page 6 of the brief,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007