Ex parte GARNEY - Page 3




              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