Appeal No. 1997-2760
Application No. 08/302,133
added to the basic combination with respect to claim 4, and
Nash is added to the basic combination with respect to claim
7.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answers for the 4
respective details.
OPINION
Initially, we note that Appellants have provided
arguments as to the sufficiency of the drawings. However, the
issue of the sufficiency of the drawings relates to a
petitionable matter and not to an appealable matter. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201.
Accordingly, we will not review the issue raised by Appellants
on page 14 of the Brief.
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the obviousness
4The Appeal Brief was filed July 5, 1996. In response to
the Examiner’s Answer dated October 1, 1996, a Reply Brief was
filed December 9, 1996 to which the Examiner responded with a
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated February 13, 1997.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007