Appeal No. 95-3998
Application 07/914,904
02, 1993
Main et al. (Main) 5,216,233 Jun.
01, 1993
Kumar 5,294,782 Mar. 15,
1994
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Metlitsky, Tierney and Wakatsuki in
view of Main or Kumar . 2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
3 4
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
2On page 3 of the answer, the Examiner listed Huber, U.S.
Pat. No. 4,420,682 and Chadima, U.S. Pat. No. 4,570,057.
However, the Examiner rejected the claims in the Final Action
based upon Metlitsky, Tierney and Wakatsuki in view of Main or
Kumar. The Examiner states on page 3 of the answer that no
new art has been applied and on page 5 of the answer that the
answer does not contain any new ground of rejection. Thus,
the record shows that claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Metlitsky, Tierney
and Wakatsuki in view of Main or Kumar as stated in the Final
rejection. Therefore, Huber and Chadima are not relied upon
by the Examiner for the rejection of the claims.
3Appellants filed an appeal brief on January 12, 1995. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on June 6, 1995. We
will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief. The
Examiner responded to the reply brief with a supplemental
Examiner's answer on August 1, 1996, thereby entering the
reply brief into the record.
4The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, mailed April 6, 1995. We will refer to the Examiner's
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007