Appeal No. 1999-2259
Application 08/711,614
the Appellant’s Brief and Examiner’s Answer for the2 3
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of
Appellant and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Rinderer. We will also
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6-8 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rinderer
and Slicer.
Focusing first on the arguments related to claims 1 and
4, Appellant asserts that “Rinderer can not anticipate claim 1
of the present invention since he does not teach or suggest
2Appellant filed a Brief on Appeal on November 23, 1998.
This brief was deemed non-compliant under 37 CFR 1.192(c).
Appellant filed an amended Brief on Appeal on March 4, 1999
that was also non-compliant under 37 CFR 1.192(c). Appellant
filed a second amended Brief on Appeal (“Brief”) on May 7,
1999.
3The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s Brief, filed an
Examiner's Answer on June 4, 1999.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007