Appeal No. 1998-0936
Application 08/369,011 Page 3
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Auerbach.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Auerbach.
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Auerbach in view of Zalenski.
Claims Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Auerbach in view of Brienza.
Claims 4, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Auerbach in view of Ogasahara.
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
November 25, 1996) and supplemental answer (Paper No. 17, mailed
March 10, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 13, filed
September 10, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed January
21, 1997) 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007