Appeal No. 97-3717 Page 5
Application No. 08/397,163
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 8, mailed December 20, 1996) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed May 15, 1997) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed March 24, 1997) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation issue
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hunt.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007