Appeal No. 95-3800
Application 08/046,109
rejection. Claims 13-22 have been additionally rejected in
the answer under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Albright .2
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers 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 obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the invention of claims 13-22 is neither
Since Letwin was not included in the statement of any of the2
rejections of the claims, we have not considered the disclosure or the
teachings of Letwin in this decision. Note In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342
n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007