Appeal No. 2003-0312
Application No. 08/871,199 Page 3
Claims 62, 63, 69, 70 and 72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fouilloy in view of Hack, and
further in view of Sugawa.
Claims 64-68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fouilloy in view of Hack, Sugawa, and
further in view of Tower.
Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fouilloy in view of Hack, and further in view
of Kramer.
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. 25, mailed
August 13, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 24, filed
June 25, 2002) 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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007