Appeal No. 95-0192
Application No. 07/914,228
Claims 1 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Hughes,
Paige, Gill, Nissen and Hess.2
We have carefully reviewed the entire record before us,
including each of the arguments and comments advanced by the
examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s § 103 rejection is well-founded. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants have
initially grouped the appealed claims at page 4 of the Brief
as follows:
Group I - claim 1; and
Group II - claims 2 through 11.
2This is the only rejection before us. The examiner has
not restated in the Answer all of the rejections based on
Hughes alone or Hughes, Nissen, Hess and Gill in the final
rejection dated April 26, 1993. Nor has the examiner disputed
appellants’ assertion that all of the rejections based on
Hughes alone or Hughes, Nissen, Hess and Gill have been
withdrawn. Compare page 1 of the Reply Brief with both the
Answer and the Supplemental Answer in their entirety.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007