Appeal No. 1996-0858 Page 15
Application No. 08/117,648
CONCLUSION
The examiner's rejections of claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tai in view
of Spendel, and of claim 17 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 over Tai in view of Spendel or Barbesgaard are reversed.
Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), the
following new ground of rejection has been made. 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.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by
final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53, 131, 53, 197 (Oct. 10,
1997), 1203 off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63,122 (Oct 21,
1997) ). 37 CFR § 1.196 (b) provides that, "A new ground of
rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of
judicial review."
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007