Appeal No. 95-3985
Application No. 08/016,644
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Imbalzano in view of Bowers.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
3(...continued)
August 16, 1994, rejected claims 1-9, 12 and 14-17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Imbalzano in view of
Bowers and further rejected claims 1-10, 13 and 15-17 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nakahara in view of Bowers. The
Examiner’s Answer additionally included claim 10 in the
rejection of Imbalzano in view of Bowers. Similarly, the
Brief, on page 4, line 3, incorrectly included claims 4-17 in
the same rejection. Presumably, this is a typographical
error. Appellants, clearly intended to state claims, “14-17.”
Likewise, the Examiner’s Answer additionally included claims
12 and 14 in the rejection of Nakahara in view of Bowers. The
rejected claims were further modified by the examiner in the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, at page 3, wherein the
rejections of claims 6, 10 and 17 were withdrawn, and three
new grounds of rejection were added for said claims 6, 10 and
17. The rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable over Imbalzano
in view of Bowers was omitted by the examiner in the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer, the record being silent as to
its omission.
As there is no comment by the examiner on the record, and
no objection by appellants in their Appeal Brief, Reply Brief
and Reply To Supplemental Answer and to the New Ground Of
Rejection to the inclusion of these additional claims in the
rejections previously made of record by the examiner, we shall
consider the rejections of these claims to have been included
in the claimed subject matter before us for decision.
Accordingly, the rejection over Imbalzano in view of Bowers is
construed to include claim 12. Likewise the rejection over
Nakahara in view of Bowers is construed to include claims 12
and 14.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007