Appeal No. 96-4204
Application 08/148,307
Claims 1-20 were finally rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to provide an adequate
written description of the invention. This rejection is not
repeated in the examiner’s answer and has apparently been
withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, 17 and 18 remain rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Albert. Claims 5, 15 and 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Albert taken alone.
Finally, claims 6, 12, 13, 16 and 19 remain rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Albert in view
of Wiegand.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007