Appeal No. 95-0311
Application No. 07/976,846
examiner notified appellant that the amendment would not be
entered because the amendment was not submitted in a separate
paper and that if the amendment were submitted in a separate
paper, the amendment would be entered and the objection to the
claims would be withdrawn. On September 17, 1996, appellant
filed an amendment (Paper No. 14) and a Reply Brief (Paper No.
15). Upon receipt of the Reply Brief, the examiner issued a
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 16), superseding the
original Answer. The rejections before us are as follows:2
Claims 1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6, 8, 10/1 and 11/1 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Murayama.
Claims 2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 7, 9, 10/2 and 11/2 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Murayama in view of Karrer, Ikenaga and appellant's admission.
After carefully considering appellant's arguments
presented in the Brief (Paper No. 8) and the Reply Brief
2We have restated each rejection to set forth the
multiply dependent claims as grouped by the Examiner and
Appellant. Compare page 2 of the Supplemental Answer with
page 1 of the Reply Brief.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007