Appeal No. 1998-1343
Application No. 08/154,695
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed February 19, 1997) and the Supplemental Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 18, mailed June 10, 1997) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellant's Brief (Paper No. 13, filed November 25, 1996),
Reply Brief (Paper No. 15, filed April 18, 1997), and
Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper No. 19, filed August 11, 1997)
for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims
6, 7, 10 and 11 and affirm the anticipation rejection of claim
9.
Appellant states (Supplemental Reply Brief, page 4) that
"[s]ince several of the arguments traversing the rejection of
claim 1 are moot, those arguments now apply to claim 6."
Appellant, therefore, requests entry of the Supplemental Reply
Brief "to ensure that the issues and arguments are clear." We
take this to mean that the arguments formerly directed to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007