Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for 2 3
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that the claims 1, 5 through 10 and 19
are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or claims 2, 3 and 11
through 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on January 13, 1995. We
will reference this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellant
filed an appeal reply brief on June 28, 1995. We will reference
this appeal reply brief as simply the reply brief. The Examiner
responded to the reply brief with an Examiner’s supplemental
answer and thereby entered the reply brief into the record.
Appellant filed an appeal supplemental reply brief on February
16, 1996. We will reference the appeal supplemental reply brief
as simply the supplemental reply brief. The Examiner responded
to the supplemental reply brief with a letter mailed May 10, 1996
stating that the supplemental reply brief has been entered and
considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed
necessary.
3The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, dated April 28, 1995. We will refer to the Examiner's
answer as simply the answer. The Examiner responded to the
reply brief with supplemental Examiner's answer dated December
18, 1995. We will refer to the supplemental Examiner's answer as
simply the supplemental answer. The Examiner responded to the
supplemental reply brief with a letter dated May 10, 1996 so
noting that the supplemental reply brief has been entered. The
Examiner offered no other response.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007