Appeal No. 2001-0517
Application No. 08/586,611
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martins in view of Choudhary
and Osterlund.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, we make reference to the brief1 (Paper No. 17) and the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 18) for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejection advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
Before embarking on any analysis, we note that appellants
have selected to have all the claims considered as one group
(brief at page 4). We select claim 8, the broadest independent
claim, for our analysis.
1 The examiner in the examiner’s answer (page 1) refers to
the appeal brief filed on August 19, 1998, however, we find that
no such appeal brief with that filing date. There is listed in
the contents of the file an appeal brief (Paper No. 15) which was
filed on November 29, 1999, however, that appeal brief was noted
to be defective (Paper No. 16). Therefore, we take the appeal
brief filed as Paper No. 17 to be the appeal brief which the
examiner really is referring to in his examiner’s answer and the
response the examiner has given to the arguments in the appeal
brief seems to correspond to the arguments stated in this appeal
brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007