Appeal No. 95-1423
Application 07/928,883
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Applicant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the entire record including
Applicant’s Brief and the Examiner’s Answer, we sustain the
rejection of claims 40, 41, 61-68 and 75 for lack of written
description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We also
sustain the following rejections because we conclude that
the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
(1) claims 40, 41, 61, 64-66, 68, 69 and 76-77 over Nopp in
view of Havel; (2) claims 62, 63, 67 and 73 over Nopp in view
of Havel and further in view of Iwai; (3) claims 70-72 and 74-
75 over Nopp in view of Havel and further in view of PC
Magazine or Staar.
At the outset, we note that Appellant states on page 3 of
his brief that the claims are divided into two groups which
stand or fall together: (1) claims 40, 41, 61-68 and 75; and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007