Appeal No. 2001-2125
Application No. 08/906,537
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Essig et al. (Essig) 4,646,257 Feb. 24, 1987
Ozaki 5,303,178 Apr. 12, 1994
Taborn et al. (Taborn) 5,550,767 Aug. 27, 1996
De Angel 5,787,029 Jul. 28, 1998
(filed Jan. 10, 1997)
Claims 1-3 and 5-18, all of the appealed claims, stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the
Examiner offers Taborn in view of De Angel with respect to claims
1, 3, 5-12, 17, and 18, separately adds Ozaki to the basic
combination with respect to claims 2 and 13, and separately adds
Essig to the basic combination with respect to claims 14-16.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 19) and Answer
(Paper No. 20) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of the
rejection and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed
and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007