Appeal No. 1997-0061
Application 08/246,140
Shrader et al. (Shrader) 3,296,477 January
3, 1967
Nakamura et al. (Nakamura) 3,671,794 June 20,
1972
Bauder 5,021,707 June 4,
1991
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shrader and Bauder.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Shrader, Bauder, and Nakamura.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14) (pages
referred to as "EA__") and the communication entered2
July 17, 1996 (Paper No. 16) for a statement of the
Examiner's position and to the Substitute Appeal Brief
(Paper No. 13) (pages referred to as "Br__"), the Reply
Brief (Paper No. 15) (pages referred to as "RBr__"), and the
Surreply Brief (Paper No. 17) for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Comments
The Examiner correctly interprets claim 1 to mean that
the prior art does not need to teach the equation for K, but
This is technically a Supplemental Examiner's Answer.2
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007