Ex parte RING - Page 3




                Appeal No. 96-3968                                                                                                            
                Application No. 08/117,669                                                                                                    


                         Claims 3, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 21 stand rejected under                                                                 
                35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of                                                                
                Hageman.                                                                                                                      


                         Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                                                              
                unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Hageman and Jones.2                                                                     


                         Claims 1, 2, 9 and 22 through 26 stand rejected under                                                                
                35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Gergely in view of                                                                 
                Hageman.                                                                                                                      


                         Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by                                                         
                the examiner and the appellant regarding the  102 (b) and 103                                                               
                rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the                                                                
                examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and                                                               
                to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed April 6, 1995) for                                                              
                the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                                                                       



                         2We note that the final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed                                                               
                August 22, 1994) set forth this ground of rejection against claim                                                             
                12.  However, the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed June                                                                
                26, 1995) did not contain this ground of rejection.                                                                           
                Nevertheless, since the examiner's answer did not withdraw this                                                               
                ground of rejection, we consider this rejection of claim 12                                                                   
                before us in this appeal.                                                                                                     
                                                                      3                                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007