Appeal No. 96-0852
Application 08/116,581
set forth on pages 2 and 3 of appellants’ specification.
Claims 1, 7 through 9, 12 and 14 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lamazou in view of Tinklepaugh, Claudy and the Admitted Prior Art . 2
The rejection of claims 1, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph made by the
examiner as a new ground of rejection in the answer (Paper No. 24, page 6) has now been withdrawn
in light of the amendment filed by appellants on June 1, 1995 (see, supplemental answer, page 2) .
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted § 103 rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the rejection, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 24, mailed April 4, 1995) and supplemental answer
(Paper No. 27, mailed September 20, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection,
and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 23, filed January 18, 1995) and reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed
June 1, 1995) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
2hereinafter APA
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007