Appeal No. 1996-3003
Application 08/175,182
states that references Nakayama, Swartz, and Knowles are cited
as cumulative to Lyon, they have not been used in the
rejection of the claims and we shall not rely on them. Also,
the final rejection, Paper No. 14, mailed February 1, 1995,
brings in the reference Chadima, justifying this by stating
Chadima’s use in a prior office action (in a parent
application). Although the use of Chadima may raise questions
as to whether the Paper No. 14 final rejection could be made
final, Chadima was made part of the rejection of the claims in
Paper No. 14, and any questions of the propriety of the
finality of that rejection are moot since Appellants have gone
forward with this appeal.
In addition, we note that the Examiner has conceded
our characterization of the outstanding rejection wherein he
states:
To simplify the issue, the appellants’
characterization of the rejection as “Hashimoto
in view of Lyon and Chadima” is accepted.
(Answer-page 3.)
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, reference is made to the brief, reply brief,
answer and supplemental answer for the respective details
thereof.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007