Appeal No. 96-3286
Application 08/197,594
(German Offenlegungsschrift)
Siegle et al. (Siegle) DE 4039887 Jun. 17, 19922
(German Offenlegungsschrift)
Claims 1, 2 and 5 to 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has relied upon
appellant’s admitted prior art as set forth between page 1, line
26 and page 2, line 7, as well as between page 2, line 27 and
page 3, line 8 of the specification as filed, further in view of
Cardullo. Although the examiner does not specifically make
mention in the statement of the rejection of each of the three
German Patent Documents, each of them is specifically discussed
in the aforementioned portions of the specification the examiner
relies upon as admitted prior art by appellant. However, each is
listed at page 2 of the Answer.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the Brief and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
Opinion
Generally, for one of the two reasons set forth by appellant
in the Brief as to independent claim 1 on appeal, we will reverse
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007