Appeal No. 97-1023
Application 08/262,461
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Harmon in view of Mathis, as applied to
claim 14 and 5 above, further in view of Dukatz.
The text of the examiner's rejections and response to the
argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper
No. 14), while the statement of appellant’s argument can be
found in the amended appeal brief (Paper No. 13) .2
In the amended appeal brief (page 4), appellant expressly
indicates that dependent claims 15, 5, and 6 stand or fall
with claim 14. Therefore, we focus our attention, infra,
exclusively upon the content of claim 14.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the obviousness issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claim 14, the applied
A “SUPPLEMENT TO THE APPEAL BRIEF” (Paper No. 16), filed in response2
to an order for compliance (Paper No. 15), provided information omitted from
the earlier filed brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007