Appeal No. 97-0191
Application 08/331,151
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Sklarew 4,972,496 Nov. 20, 1990
Norwood 5,063,600 Nov. 05, 1991
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 15-35 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Sklarew. Claims 11-14 and 36-38 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Sklarew in view of Norwood.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is made to the
Brief and Answer for the respective details thereof.2
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by the
Examiner, the arguments in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections 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 Sklarew does
not fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1-4, 7-10, and 15-35. We are also of the view that the
2The Reply Brief filed May 28, 1996 was considered by the Examiner as not being limited to
new points of argument or to new grounds of rejection and was not entered. Accordingly, the
arguments in such Reply Brief have not been considered in this appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007