Appeal No. 96-3842
Application 08/489,696
Scheingold et al. (Scheingold) 4,052,118 Oct. 4, 1977
Claims 9, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sterling.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the rejec-
tion, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
17, mailed June 11, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
16, filed May 6, 1996) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respec-
tive positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007