Appeal No. 1996-0858 Page 4
Application No. 08/117,648
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tai in view of Spendel or Barbesgaard.
Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we make
the following new rejection: claim 17 is rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by and/or alternatively under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in the
specification including the admissions as set forth at page 2,
lines 1-19, page 6, lines 7-14, and pages 16 and 17,
comparative example A.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions
presented by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellant's basic contention that
the applied prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of
observe that the above-noted amendment has not, as yet, been
physically entered by the examining group not withstanding a
Remand to the examiner mailed April 24, 1998 that ordered the
physical entry of that amendment in light of the advisory
action. Accordingly, the April 22, 1994 amendment should be
physically entered by the appropriate group personnel prior to
the final disposition of this application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007