Ex parte BRANHAM et al. - Page 3

          Appeal No. 96-2780                                                          
          Application 08/162,362                                                      

          under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Marrujo ‘441.              
          Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                
          unpatentable over Marrujo ‘441 as applied to claim 13 above, and            
          further in view of Moscovitch.                                              
               Rather than reiterate the examiner’s full statement of the             
          above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          appellants and the examiner regarding those rejections, we make             
          reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 40) for the                   
          examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to           
          appellants substitute brief (Paper No. 39) for appellants’                  
          arguments thereagainst.                                                     

               In reaching our conclusions in this case, we have given                
          careful consideration to the appellants’ invention as described             
          in the specification, to the appealed claims, to the prior art              
          applied by the examiner and to the respective viewpoints advanced           
          by the appellants in the substitute brief and by the examiner in            
          the answer.  These considerations lead us to the conclusions                
          which follow.                                                               
               In regard to the anticipation rejection of claim 17, we                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007