Appeal No. 1997-2056
Application No. 08/019,798
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Hughes et al. (Hughes) 5,109,484 Apr. 28, 1992
Fuller et al. (Fuller) 5,302,947 Apr. 12, 1994
(Filed Jul. 31, 1992)
Lien et al. (Lien) 5,386,567 Jan. 31, 1995
(Filed Oct. 14, 1992)
2
Claims 17-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lien in view of Hughes and Fuller.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 21, mailed Aug. 20, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's answer3
(Paper No. 23, mailed Dec. 30, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 20, filed Jul. 19, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 22, filed Oct. 28, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
2We note that the appendix to the appeal brief only includes claims 17-35, but we note that claim
36 has not been canceled, therefore, we include this rejected claim in our decision.
3We note that the supplemental examiner’s answer appears to be a copy of the examiner’s
answer. We find no additional response by the examiner to address appellant’s arguments which were
made in the reply brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007