Appeal No. 96-0922
Application 08/251,306
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
being anticipated by Hegg.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b)
as being anticipated by Crone.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by appellant appears in the
answer (Paper No. 13), while the complete statement of appel-
lant’s argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 16). 3
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation
issues raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has
carefully considered appellant’s specification and claims 17
and 18, the applied patents, and the respective viewpoints of
3The brief (Paper No. 16) was submitted subsequent to the
filing of an earlier appeal brief (Paper No. 12), pursuant to
an order for compliance (Paper No. 15). Appellant chose to
submit the new brief (Paper No. 16), rather than a supplement
to the earlier brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007