Appeal No. 1997-1874
Application No. 08/134,025
Dinallo et al. (Dinallo) 5,487,167 Jan.
23, 1996
(Effective filing date Dec. 31,
1991)
Claims 1 through 6, 9 through 15, 18 through 22, and 25
through 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Palmer in view of Edem and Dinallo.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed March 6, 1996), the First Supplemental Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 23, mailed July 15, 1996), and the Second
Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 25, mailed December
15, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No. 18, filed
August 11, 1995), Reply Brief (Paper No. 22, filed April 22,
1996), and Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper No. 24, filed
September 19, 1996) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 6, 9 through 15, 18 through 22, and 25 through 28.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007