Appeal No. 94-3053
Application 07/832,661
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or
the Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers 3 4
for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that: claims 2, 11 through 15, 17 and
55 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Hester;
claims 20 through 22, 60 and 61 are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Hester; claims 3 and 23 through 26 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hester and Poret;
3Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 28, 1993.
We will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on June 6, 1994. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The
Examiner responded to the reply brief in the supplemental
Examiner’s answer, mailed June 12, 1996 and thereby has
entered and con-sidered the reply brief.
4The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, mailed January 11, 1994. We will refer to the
Examiner's answer as simply the answer. The Examiner
responded to the reply brief with a supplemental Examiner's
answer, mailed June 12, 1996. We will refer to the
supplemental Examiner's answer as simply the supplemental
answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007