Appeal No. 96-2501
Application 08/177,243
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Schulz.
Claims 2, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kao.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schulz.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
10, mailed January 24, 1996) for the examiner's full reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 9,
filed October 19, 1995) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.3
OPINION
3The reply brief filed February 23, 1996 (Paper No. 11)
was refused entry by the examiner. See Paper No. 12, mailed
March 26, 1996.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007