Appeal No. 1996-3623
Application No. 08/114,546
Kaufman IEEE and Kaufman ‘554. Claims 4, 5 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Beckman in view of Kudo, Kaufman ‘475, Kaufman IEEE,
Kaufman ‘554 and Travers. Claims 13, 14 and 24-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Beckman in view of Kudo, Kaufman ‘475, Kaufman IEEE,
Kaufman ‘554 and Foley.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Feb. 6, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's
answer/letter (Paper No. 15, mailed May 20, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 12, filed Dec. 15, 1995)
and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed Apr. 10, 1996) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision to remand in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner and
the procedural prosecution history. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007