through 6, 8, 9 and 18 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiou and Franaszek.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for 2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 6 and 21 through 24
are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Georgiou or that claims
1 through 6, 8, 9 and 18 through 24 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Georgiou and Franaszek.
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on July 6, 1994. We will
refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellant filed
a reply appeal brief on November 7, 1994. We will refer to this
reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The Examiner responded to
the reply brief in a supplemental response, mailed March 20,
1995, stating that the reply brief has been entered and
considered and that no further response by the Examiner is deemed
necessary. The Appellant also filed an amendment after appeal to
the claims on November 7, 1994. In the supplemental response,
March 20, 1995, the Examiner indicates that the amendment has
been entered into the record. We note that the record has not
entered this amendment and direct the Examiner to formally enter
this amendment upon receiving the file from the board. For
purposes of this appeal, we will consider the amendment entered
and consider these claims before us on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007