Appeal No. 96-1999
Application 08/216,382
Claims 1, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hubert.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and re-
sponse to the argument presented by appellant appears in the
answer (Paper No. 12), while the complete statement of appel-
lant’s argument can be found in the brief (Paper No. 10).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
patent to Hubert, and the respective viewpoints of appellant
and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the rejection of appellant’s claims 1, 8,
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007