Appeal No. 96-0654
Application 08/103,207
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the 2 3
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 15
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 or 103.
In regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph for failing to provide an adequate written
description of the invention, the Examiner argues that the
specification does not describe any function which is known in
the art as inter-polating. The Examiner acknowledges that the
specification refers to an interpolating reproduction unit
2Appellant filed an appeal brief on June 5, 1995. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on October 23, 1995 The
Examiner responded to the reply brief with a supplemental
Examiner's answer thereby entering and considering the reply
brief.
3The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's
answer, mailed August 22, 1995. We will refer to the
Examiner's answer as simply the answer. The Examiner
responded to the reply brief with supplemental Examiner's
answer, mailed February 7, 1996.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007