Appeal No. 96-0541
Application 08/034,845
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
agree with the Examiner that claims 5 and 11 through 15 are
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on October 13, 1994. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on March 9, 1995. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as simply the reply
brief. The Examiner responded the reply brief with a
supplemental Examiner's answer and thereby entered the reply
brief into the record. On March 9, 1995, Appellant filed an
amendment. The Examiner stated in the supplemental Examiner's
answer that this amendment is not entered into the record.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief to Supplemental
Examiner's Answer on June 27, 1995. We will refer to this
reply appeal brief as simply the supplemental reply brief.
On June 27, 1995, Appellant filed an amendment which was not
entered into the record. The Examiner stated in the
Examiner’s letter, mailed July 25, 1995 that the supplemental
reply brief has been entered and considered but no further
response by the Examiner is deemed necessary. The Examiner
also stated in the letter that the June 27, 1995 amendment is
not entered into the record.
3The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, mailed January 9, 1995. We will refer to the
Examiner's answer as simply the answer. We note that the
answer contains a new ground of rejection rejecting claims 7
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Miyake, Tannas, Buzak and Grier. The Examiner responded to the
reply brief with a supplemental Examiner's answer, mailed May
30, 1995. We will refer to the Supplemental Examiner's answer
as simply the supplemental answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007