Appeal No. 1996-2811
Application 08/402,670
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed February 22, 1996) for the
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’
brief (Paper No. 11, filed January 22, 1996) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Independent claims 1, 2 and 3 on appeal each define a
ceramic guide rail for guiding photographic film and paper.
Independent claims 10, 11 and 12 each define a ceramic guide
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007