Appeal No. 97-1005
Application 08/262,993
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 15, mailed April 9, 1996) and to the supplemental
examiner's answer (Paper No. 17, mailed May 28, 1996) for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the above-noted rejections.
Appellant's arguments against the examiner's rejections are
found in appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 16,
1996), reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed April 22, 1996) and
supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed June 13, 1996).
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal has included a careful assessment of appellant's
specification and claims, the applied prior art references,
and the respective positions advanced by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have reached the
conclusion that none of the examiner's rejections before us on
appeal will be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Looking at the basic combination of Stroup and
Brockmuller, we share appellant's view (brief, pages 7-8) that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007