Appeal No. 1998-0153
Application No. 08/497,227
Dorais 4,188,549 Feb. 12, 1980
Ta 4,803,459 Feb. 07, 1989
Admitted prior art in Figures 4 and 5 and corresponding discussion in the
specification.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Ta. Claims 2, 6 and 10 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art in view of Ta and
Dorais.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed Dec. 20, 1996), examiner's letter (Paper No. 19, mailed
2
May 16, 1997) and the supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 20, mailed Jul. 10,
1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief
(Paper No. 15, filed Nov. 19, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed Feb. 21, 1997) for
the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
2We note that the supplemental examiner’s answer is merely a copy of the prior examiner’s
answer without express responses to the arguments in the reply brief, and the examiner’s letter stated that
no further response by the examiner was needed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007