Appeal No. 1997-1655
Application 07/797,893
examiner relies upon Crawford ‘148 in view of Robb.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Crawford ‘148 in view of Robb, and further in view of Crawford ‘202.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the Brief
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.3
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by appellants’ in the Brief, and for the reasons which follow,
we will reverse the rejection of claims 13 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of appellants
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we are in general agreement with appellants that
the applied references would not have taught or suggested the method of appellants’ claim 13 to 20 on
3We note that the after final amendment dated May 16, 1995, has not been entered as per the Advisory
Action of May 26, 1995. The after final amendment dated September 5, 1995, amending claims 13, 17, and 21, has
been entered.
Our review of the file wrapper in this case indicates that the Reply Brief of January 30, 1996, has not been
entered by the examiner as indicated in the letters from the examiner dated February 15, 1996, and April 9, 1996, as
well as the Group Director’s decision on petition dated January 10, 1997.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007