Appeal No. 96-3056
Application No. 08/173,287
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Baber does not fully meet
the invention as recited in claims 1-16. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will stand or fall together in the following
three groups: Group I has claims 1, 5-8 and 12-14, Group II
has claims 2-4 and 9-11, and Group III has claims 15 and 16
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007