Appeal No. 96-0809
Application 08/197,677
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for2
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the prior art evidence relied upon by the
examiner does not anticipate nor render obvious the invention
as set forth in claims 1-13 and 15. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this
2Appellants filed a reply brief on November 6, 1995 but this reply
brief was denied entry by the examiner [Paper No. 28]. Therefore, we have not
considered the reply brief in preparing this decision.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007