Appeal No. 1996-1418
Application No. 08/247,521
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed November 15, 1995) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant's
Brief (Paper
No. 20, filed August 16, 1995) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellant indicates
on page 3 of the Brief that the claims do not stand or fall
together. Appellant argues each of claims 1, 4, and 6
separately, but not the remaining dependent claims.
Therefore, we will treat the claims according to the following
three groups: (1) claims 1 through 3 and 7/(1-3), (2) claims
4, 5, and
7/(4, 5), and (3) claims 6 and 7/6.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we will affirm the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 7/(4, 5) and
reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6, and 7/(1-3,
6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007