Appeal No. 1996-3903 Page 4
Application No. 08/305,225
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fickenwirth in view of
Lederman and Bender. Claims 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fickenwirth in view of Lederman and Albert.
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. 14, mailed Jan. 3, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 16, mailed May 3, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed Dec. 14, 1995), reply brief
(Paper No. 15, filed Feb. 26, 1996) and replacement brief (Paper No. 22, filed May 28,
5
1999) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
5 We reference the replacement brief, which corrected formal matters, when citing to appellants'
brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007