Appeal No. 96-0659
Application 08/081,040
Tam (Tam ’183) 5,257,183 Oct. 26, 1993
(filed Dec. 21, 1990)
Tam (Tam ’926) 5,270,926 Dec. 14, 1993
(filed Dec. 21, 1990)
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
the disclosure of Tam ’926. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Tam ’926 in view of Tam ’183.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make reference to
the briefs and the answers for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of Tam
’926 does fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1, 2, 4 and 5. We are also of the
view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007