Appeal No. 1999-2831 Page 3
Application No. 08/703,435
Claims 2 to 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Burnelli in view of Cole '928 and Cole
'987.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 9, mailed June 25, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 17,
mailed December 21, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 15, filed November 16, 1998) and reply brief (Paper
No. 18, filed February 17, 1999) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.2
OPINION
2In this appeal, we have not considered either the
supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed May 11,
1999) or the appellant's supplemental reply brief (Paper No.
20, filed June 8, 1999) since the rules of practice do not
provide for such papers. In fact, 37 CFR § 1.193(b)(1)
expressly states that "[a] supplemental examiner's answer is
not permitted unless the application has been remanded by the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for such purpose."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007