Appeal No. 96-0473
Application No. 08/082,727
ISSUES
I. Claims 1, 2 and 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wellman in view of Crystal.
II. Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wellman in view of Crystal and further in view of Azar.
III. Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wellman in view of Crystal further in view of Azar and further in view of Sawai.
We reverse for reasons which follow.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references and to the respective positions articulated by
the appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper no. 14, mailed
June 20, 1995) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants’ brief (Paper no. 13, filed May 08, 1995) and appellants’ reply brief (Paper no. 15, filed
August 03, 1995) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants have stated “the rejected claims will stand or
fall together” (Brief, page 4). Therefore, we decide this appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007