Appeal No. 2002-1318
Application No. 08/693,662
Lee 5,671,195 Sep. 23, 1997
(filed May 31, 1996)
Claims 1, 3, and 5, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over West in view of Downey and Dockery.
Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over West in view of Downey and Dockery, and
further in view of Copley.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over West in view of Downey and Dockery, and further
in view of Lee.
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. 16, mailed
July 12, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 15, filed
April 27, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed September
19, 2001) 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).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007