Appeal No. 97-1005 Application 08/262,993 Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed April 9, 1996) and to the supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 17, mailed May 28, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the above-noted rejections. Appellant's arguments against the examiner's rejections are found in appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 16, 1996), reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed April 22, 1996) and supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed June 13, 1996). OPINION Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this appeal has included a careful assessment of appellant's specification and claims, the applied prior art references, and the respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have reached the conclusion that none of the examiner's rejections before us on appeal will be sustained. Our reasons follow. Looking at the basic combination of Stroup and Brockmuller, we share appellant's view (brief, pages 7-8) that 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007