Appeal No. 2001-1548 Page 2
Application No. 08/907,512
consecutively rather than intermittently (specification, page 1). A copy of the claims under
appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the appealed
claims:
Kristapovich et al. (Kristapovich) 4,350,022 Sep. 21, 1982
Perrine et al. (Perrine) 4,515,516 May 7, 1985
Zanarini 4,761,118 Aug. 2, 1988
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Perrine in view of Zanarini.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kristapovich in view of Zanarini.
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. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief
and reply brief (Paper Nos. 11 and 13) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007