Appeal No. 1997-3088
Application No. 08/521,562
rejection of claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mizuno in view of Crawley because
neither Forward nor Mizuno is seen to provide for the deficiencies noted supra with regard
to Crawley.
We have not sustained either the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because no prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness has been shown by the examiner.
We note appellants’ willingness, at page 2 of the reply brief, to file a terminal
disclaimer regarding possible commonly claimed subject matter between this application
and Serial No. 08/541,799. We leave this matter to be settled between appellants and the
examiner at the appropriate time.
We also note a bit of curiosity at the statement, at page 4 of the reply brief, that, with
regard to the examiner’s RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT, “Applicants affirm the Examiner’s
Answer.” While this may be taken to mean that appellants agree with the examiner’s
arguments, which would make our decision herein a pro forma affirmance, we will take this
statement as being no more than an acknowledgment by appellants of the examiner’s
position. Of course, if we are in error in this view and appellants did, in fact, mean to agree
with the examiner’s arguments regarding the instant rejections, appellants are invited to file
a request for rehearing urging us to reverse our decision.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007