Appeal No. 94-0792
Application No. 07/943,795
The only issue presented for review is whether the
examiner correctly rejected claims 1 through 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Dmitrieva and Norris.3
OPINION
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation
and review of the following materials: (1) the instant
specification, including Figures 1 through 3, and all of the
claims on appeal; (2) appellants’ Brief, Reply Brief and
Supplemental Reply Brief before the Board; (3) the examiner’s
Answer and Supplemental Answers; and (4) the prior art
references cited and relied on by the examiner.
3In the final Office action, the examiner rejected claims
1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Dmitrieva and Norris. The examiner,
however, did not repeat the § 103 rejection based on the
combined disclosures of Dmitrieva and Norris in the Answer.
The Answer contained only a new ground of rejection, i.e., an
obviousness-type double patenting rejection based on Corbin
(parent Application 07/718,720, now U.S. Patent No.
5,169,870), Dmitrieva and Norris. In response to the Reply
Brief, the examiner withdrew the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection, but reinstated the § 103 rejection based
on the combined disclosures of Dmitrieva and Norris in the
first Supplemental Answer, Paper No. 14.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007