Appeal No. 1999-1992
Application No. 08/848,842
(filed Sep. 15, 1994)
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12-19, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Farwell. Claims 5 and 10
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Farwell in view of Kolluri, while claim 6 stands rejected
over Farwell in view of Davis.
Rather than repeat the positions and the arguments of
appellants and the examiner, we make reference to the briefs3
and the answer for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed appellants’ arguments
against the rejections as set forth in the briefs.
We reverse.
The examiner rejects all the independent claims, namely,
claims 1, 8, 13 and 17 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
102 by Farwell. For the explanation of the rejection, the
examiner merely makes a reference to the abstract and Figure 1
of Farwell. A prior art reference anticipates the subject of
3A reply brief was filed as Paper No. 16 and was entered
into the record without any further response from the
examiner, see Paper No. 17.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007