Appeal No. 95-0933
Application 08/032,764
as being anticipated by Bertrand.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for
the
details thereof. We note that the claims that are before us
are
found in the appendix provided in the supplemental reply2
brief,
filed January 13, 1998.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that the claims are anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Bertrand.
2In this supplemental reply brief, Appellants provide the appealed
claims in an attached appendix. The Examiner stated in a letter, mailed
January 30, 1998, that the supplemental reply brief has been entered and
considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary. We
note that the Examiner's communication did not object to these claims. We
will take the Examiner's silence as the Examiner's acceptance that these
claims are the proper claims for our consideration for this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007