Appeal No. 1996-3262
Application No. 08/141,632
Claims 1-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kimoto et al or Nakahata et al when taken with
Cole or Olmstead, or Miura et al. 3
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief 4, Reply Brief5,
Supplemental Reply Briefs6, Response to Supplemental Examiner's
Answer7, Examiner's Answers8, and Supplemental Examiner's Answers 9
2
2 This rejection was first made in the Supplemental
Examiner's Answer mailed August 20, 1996.
3
3 In the advisory action mailed August 23, 1995, the
Examiner withdrew the prior allowance of claim 4. Following the
Appeal Brief received October 27, 1995, the Examiner in his
answer mailed January 11, 1996, again allowed claim 4. The
rejection of this claim is therefore not before us.
In the final rejection mailed February 24, 1995, the
Examiner rejected claims 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for the reasons set forth in the rejection. As the
Examiner withdrew this rejection in the advisory action mailed
August 23, 1995, this matter is no longer at issue.
4
4 The Brief was received October 27, 1995.
5
5 The Reply Brief was received March 12, 1996.
6
6 Two Supplemental Reply Briefs were received, one on June
19, 1996, and one on October 25, 1996.
7
7 This Response To Supplemental Examiner's Answer was
received February 28, 1997.
8
8 Two Examiner's Answers were mailed, one on January 11,
1996, and one on April 17, 1996.
9
9 Two Supplemental Examiner's Answers were mailed, one on
August 20, 1996, and one on December 26, 1996.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007