Appeal No. 97-1872
Application 08/371,620
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Instance ‘686.5
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Instance ‘043 in view of Instance ‘686.
Claims 1, 3-10, 21, 26-30 and 35-38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Instance ‘686.6
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 28, mailed September 11, 1996).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 27, filed July 24, 1996) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 29, filed November 18, 1996).
Opinion
We will not sustain the standing rejections for basically
the same reasons set forth by appellant on pages 13-25 of the
brief. We add the following to emphasize and further clarify
our views with respect to the issues raised by this appeal.
A fundamental issue in this appeal is the proper
5In the answer, the examiner inadvertently included
canceled claim 17 in the statement of this rejection.
6In the answer, the examiner inadvertently included a
rejection of canceled claim 18 as being unpatentable over
Instance ‘686.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007