Appeal No. 96-2520
Application 07/891,852
Claims 7, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sotome '124 and Graham. 3
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant
or the Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the 4
answers for the respective details thereof.5
3The Examiner has made this new ground of rejection in
the Examiner's answer.
4Appellant filed an appeal brief on May 19, 1995.
Appellant filed a reply appeal brief on October 4, 1995. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as the first reply
brief. The Examiner stated in a supplemental Examiner’s
answer mailed November 21, 1995 that the reply brief has been
entered. Appellant filed another reply appeal brief on Decem-
ber 26, 1995. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the
second reply brief. The Examiner stated in a letter mailed
February 21, 1996 that the second reply brief has been entered
and considered but no further response by the Examiner is
deemed necessary. In a later supplemental Examiner's answer
mailed December 12, 1996, the Examiner states the second reply
brief will not be entered. Because the Examiner has already
entered the second reply brief, we will consider the second
reply brief entered. Appellant filed a supplemental reply
brief on February 11, 1997. The Examiner stated in a letter
mailed March 26, 1997 that the second reply brief has been
entered and considered but no further response by the Examiner
is deemed necessary.
5The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, dated August 8, 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, 8 and 10 which
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
(continued...)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007