Appeal No. 2000-1812
Application No. 08/432,483
Grounds of Rejection
1
Claims 1, 2, 6 - 8, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies on Swenson and Valmori.
Claims 1, 2, 5 - 8, 10, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence
of obviousness, the examiner relies on Swenson, Valmori and Weiner.
Claims 1, 2, 5 - 8, 10 - 12, 14 - 18, and 27 - 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on Swenson, Valmori, Weiner,
and Whitlock .
We reverse for reasons set forth herein.
Discussion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant’s specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the Examiner's Answer of April 26,
1999 (Paper No. 21) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
appellant’s Appeal Brief, filed January 28, 1999 (Paper No. 20) and Reply Brief filed June
2
30, 1999 (Paper No. 23) , for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
1The examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 5 under this rejection. (Answer,
page 6).
2In the Office action of September 9, 1999 (Paper No. 24), the examiner noted the
entry and consideration of the Reply Brief but indicated that no further response was
necessary. In addition to arguments, appellant included, as evidence, an article by Michel
which had not previously been addressed by the Examiner on this record. Having entered
the Reply Brief and thus the arguments relating to this evidentiary article and having
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007