Appeal No. 96-0338
Application 08/095,179
claim 1. There appears to be no antecedent basis of “said
plurality of frequency bands” as recited near the end of
dependent claim 21 on appeal. We note an apparent violation
of Rule 75(b) as to the inclusion of both claim 21/18/1 and
independent claim 22. The subject matter of dependent claim
21/18/1 appears to be substantially identical to that set
forth in independent claim 22, violating the requirements of
this rule since the result is apparently what amounts to
essentially duplicate claims.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer
for the respective details thereof. Since the examiner has
indicated in the communications of October 27, 1995 and June
3, 1996 that the reply brief filed on September 28, 1995 has
not been entered, we have not considered it in our
deliberations.
OPINION
Generally for the reasons expressed by appellants in the
principal brief on appeal, we reverse the outstanding
rejection of all the claims on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007