Appeal No. 1999-2040
Application No. 08/475,023 Page 3
Applicants' admitted prior art (page 2).
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Spaulding.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spaulding in view of the admitted prior art.
Claims 3-5, 10, 15, 16, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spaulding in view of
Oshikoshi.
Claims 8 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Spaulding in view of the admitted
prior art and Oshikoshi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed
August 6, 1998 for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 13, filed
June 1, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed October 6,
1998) for appellants' arguments thereagainst. Only those
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37
CFR 1.192(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007