Appeal No. 1998-1660
Application No. 08/108,499
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answers for the 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
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 anticipation
and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s
2The Appeal Brief was filed February 20, 1996. In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated October 11, 1996, a
Reply Brief was filed December 11, 1996 which was originally
denied entry by the Examiner. A resubmitted Reply Brief filed
in response to the new ground of rejection was filed May 19,
1997 to which the Examiner responded with a second
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer on August 7, 1997. A
Supplemental Reply Brief in response was filed by Appellants
on October 7, 1997.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007