Appeal No. 95-3686
Application No. 08/034,794
applicant's specification. Based on a review of the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 8), we find that the latter
rejection has been withdrawn. This follows because, in the
Answer, the examiner does not repeat or refer to a rejection
of claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over applicant's discussion of prior art references set forth
in the specification.
Accordingly, the sole issue presented for review is
whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hughes.
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation
and review of the following materials: (1) the instant speci-
fication, including all of the claims on appeal; (2)
applicant's Appeal Brief and Reply Brief; (3) the Final
Rejection (Paper
No. 5) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 8); and (4) the
Hughes reference cited and relied on by the examiner.
On consideration of the record, including the above-
listed materials, we reverse the examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007