Appeal No. 1997-0595 Page 5
Application No. 08/154,911
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed August 21, 1996) and the examiner's reply (Paper No.
24, mailed May 13, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 18,
filed August 1, 1996), reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed
October 31, 1996) and response to examiner's reply (Paper No.
25, filed June 9, 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 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007