Appeal No. 2002-0225 Page 3
Application No. 08/332,275
Claims 19 to 21 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Desma-Werke.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Vibram in view of Makovski.
Claims 30, 31, 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Vibram.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 34, mailed May 31, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 33, filed April 23, 2001) and reply brief
(Paper No. 36, filed July 23, 2001) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007