Ex parte ANDERSON - Page 5




          Appeal No. 96-2372                                                          
          Application 08/278,676                                                      



                    Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper                 
          No. 35, mailed January 23, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in            
          support of the above-noted rejections.  Appellants' arguments               
          thereagainst are found in the brief (Paper No. 34, filed                    
          October 23, 1995).                                                          





          OPINION                                                                     
                    In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issues              
          raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants'             
          specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the                    
          respective viewpoints advanced by appellants and the examiner.              
          As a consequence of our review, we have made the determination              
          that the examiner's rejections of the appealed claims under 35              
          U.S.C.  103 cannot be sustained.  However, we have also decided            
          to remand the application to the examiner for further                       
          consideration. Our reasons follow.                                          


                    The examiner's statements notwithstanding, when the               
          disclosure of Callahan is fully considered, we fail to find                 


                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007