Appeal No. 96-0230
Application 08/056,094
Their respective dependent claims, claims 2 to 5, 7 to 10,
12 to 15 and 17 to 20, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over each of these references individually.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective details thereof. 2
OPINION
Inasmuch as we find no anticipation of any of the
independent claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 on appeal in light of any one
of the references to Chau, Borrelli, Murray or Ugenti, we reverse
the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as well as
their respective dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In reviewing the examiner’s positions, it appears that the
examiner is relying upon inherency in part for the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. We do not agree with the
examiner’s basic position that the structure of each of the four
references relied upon necessarily functions in a manner to
2The supplemental reply brief filed on April 10, 1996, in
response to the remand by the earlier panel of this Board, was
denied entry by the examiner in a communication to appellants
from the examiner on May 2, 1996. As such, we have not
considered it in our deliberations.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007