Appeal No. 1999-1080
Application No. 08/681,022
understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 17,
which appears in the appendix to the brief (Paper No. 14).1
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Moore et al. (Moore) 4,838,460 Jun. 13,
1989
Favre 5,611,463 Mar. 18,
1997
(filed Jul. 12,
1995)2
Claims 17 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Favre in view of Moore.
The full text of the examiner's rejection and response to
the arguments presented by the appellants appears in the
1A correct copy of claim 18 appears in the appendix to the answer.
2 We note that on November 28, 1997, the appellants filed a declaration
of Kenneth Berger, one of the named inventors, under 37 CFR § 1.131
purportedly showing that the inventors made the invention in the U.S. before
the U.S. filing date of the Favre patent. See Paper No. 6. This evidence has
not been considered in deciding this appeal, since the evidence is not relied
upon to support any argument in the brief. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007