Appeal No. 96-1903
Application 08/263,368
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for 3 4
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the Appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief.
It is our view that claims 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 18
are obvious over various combinations of Hubbard, APA,
Auslander, Calvi and Pastor, while claims 1, 5 to 7, 16, 17,
19 and 20 are not obvious over the suggested various
combinations of Hubbard, APA, Auslander, Calvi and Pastor.
Accordingly, we affirm in part.
In our analysis, we are guided by the general
3Two reply briefs, papers no. 11 and 19, were filed on
July 17, 1995 and December 17, 1998 respectively.
4An Examiner’s answer, [paper no. 10], was filed with a
new ground of rejection which replaced the final rejection. A
supplemental answer, [paper no. 13] was filed with yet another
new ground of rejection which in turn replaced the new ground
of rejection in the Examiner’s answer.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007