Appeal No. 97-2644
Application 08/381,531
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed February 19, 1997) for the exam-
iner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appel-
lant's brief (Paper No. 15, filed December 2, 1996) for appel-
lant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the re-
spective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determination
that none of the examiner's rejections will be sustained. Our
reasoning in support of this determination follows.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection under
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007