Appeal No. 1997-0009
Application No. 08/074,819
anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over, Stary.
II. Claims 1-10 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, for lack of enablement.
We have carefully considered the entire record in light 1
of the opposing arguments respectively presented by appellants
and by the examiner. Having done so, we shall reverse each of
the rejections at issue essentially for the reasons advanced
by appellants.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/103 rejection, we
find that appellants have established that there is a
recognized distinction in the art between HTV (high
1We note that appellants filed a paper on Feb. 7, 2000
(certificate of mailing: Feb. 2, 2000) styled "Reply Brief
Under 37 CFR 1.193." That paper is belated and, thus, has not
been considered by us. In this regard, we observe that
appellants previously filed a Reply Brief on April 23, 1996 in
which they responded to all grounds of rejection, including a
new ground of rejection, applied in the examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 16) dated Feb. 22, 1996. The Reply Brief filed on
April 23 1996 has been considered. The examiner’s Answer
referred to in the belated paper as "dated Dec. 2, 1999" is,
in actuality, merely a copy of the original Answer (Paper No.
16 dated Feb. 22, 1996) attached to a letter (Paper No. 25)
indicating approval by the supervisory patent examiner. There
is no indication that appellants would be given yet another
opportunity to respond to the Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007