Appeal No. 1998-2383 Page 3
Application No. 08/116,355
The following rejections are before us for review.3
1. Claims 51, 32-34 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Holappa in view of Chellis, Richardson and Goodman.
2. Claims 35, 39-42, 46-48, 56 and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Holappa in view of Chellis, Tee and Richardson.
3. Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Holappa in
view of Chellis and Richardson.
4. Claims 17, 19, 36, 50 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Holappa in view of Chellis, Tee, Richardson and the British reference.
5. Claims 22, 29 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Holappa in view of Chellis, Tee, Richardson, the British reference and Piccini.4
6. Claims 38 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Holappa in view of Chellis, Tee, Richardson and Piccini.
3As evident from the requests for clarification in the appellant's brief (Paper No. 20), first reply brief
(Paper No. 23) and second reply brief (Paper No. 25, page 2), the examiner's Office action (Paper No. 17, mailed
February 11, 1997) and answer (Paper No. 21, mailed December 2, 1997) contain errors in the statements of the
rejections which have been clarified by the examiner's supplemental communication (Paper No. 24, mailed April 29,
1998). The appellant has not alleged that these clarifications constitute new grounds of rejection. We have
considered the examiner's supplemental communication mailed after the appellant's first reply brief and the
appellant's second reply brief only to the extent necessary to understand what rejections are before us. We have not
considered any arguments presented in these papers with regard to the merits of these rejections, since 37 CFR §
1.193 provides for neither supplemental examiner's answers, except upon remand from the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences for such purpose, nor supplemental reply briefs.
4It is apparent from the examiner's remarks on page 4 of the answer, read in light of item 2 (apparent
errors in last Office action) on page 10 of the appellant's brief, that the omission of Tee in this rejection was an
inadvertent error. In any event, the appellant is not prejudiced by this interpretation in view of: (1) our treatment of
this rejection, infra, and (2) the appellant's assumption (brief, page 10) that Tee is included in the rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007