Ex parte MALIK et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 97-0677                                                          
          Application No. 08/312,710                                                  

          brief (Paper No. 12, filed July 29, 1996) and reply brief                   
          (Paper No. 14, filed November 25, 1996) for the appellants'                 
          arguments thereagainst.                                                     

               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellants' specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by the appellants and the                  
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                      
          determinations which follow.                                                

                                       CLAIM 1                                        
               We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1                
          under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Pyzytulla in               
          view of Ames.                                                               

               On page 4 of the answer, the examiner determined that                  
                    [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill             
                    in the art to have employed the close proximity                   
                    tangential plane teaching of Ames (847) in the                    
                    construction of the device of Pyzytulla      (642).               


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007