Appeal No. 96-2203
Application 08/160,463
Dorfe in view of Fadem. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dorfe in view of Fadem and Dixon. Claims 5-8 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Dorfe and Fadem. Claims 9-13
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfe in view of Fadem,
Dixon and Allen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
2 3
appellant, we make reference to the Briefs and Answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 1, 3 and 4 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103; we will reverse this
rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4. We disagree with the Examiner that claim 2 is properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103; we will reverse this rejection of claim 2.
We disagree with the Examiner that claims 5-8 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
2Appellant filed an Appeal Brief on January 4, 1996, Paper No. 38. We will refer to this Appeal
Brief as simply the Brief. Appellant filed a Reply Brief on April 1, 1996, Paper No. 40. We will refer to this
Reply Brief as simply the Reply.
3The Examiner responded to the Brief with an Examiner's Answer mailed, January 30, 1996, Paper
No. 39. We will refer to this Examiner's Answer as simply the Answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007