Appeal No. 1997-2774
Application No. 08/080,471
as to claims 18, 19, 38, and 39, Coutta and Onoe as to claims
20 through 22, 24, and 40 through 42, Coutta, Onoe, and
Spragins as to claim 25, and Coutta, Onoe, and Handbook as to
claim 26.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16,
mailed January 16, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 15, filed August 21, 1996) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we affirm the enablement rejection of claims 28, 30,
33, and 37 and reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 14, 16 through 22, 24 through 34, and 36 through 44.
In other words, we affirm-in-part. We also enter a new ground
of rejection using our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
As to the enablement rejection, the examiner asserts
(Final Rejection, page 2) that "claims 28, 30, 33, and 37 are
considered to be a [sic] single means claim[s]." Appellant
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007