Appeal No. 96-0285
Application 07/900,528
unpatentable over the teachings of Lechaton in view of Ning.
In response to the filing of a first reply brief, the examiner
withdrew the rejection of claim 12 under Section 103 and
reinserted the rejection under Section 102(b) based on
Lechaton. Claim 12 thus stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Lechaton.
The examiner’s answer also contained an additional new
rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as being based on an inadequate written description of the
invention. In response to the filing of the first reply
brief, this rejection was withdrawn [supplemental answer].
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, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the examiner as support for the prior art
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007