Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,713
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s final
rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed Jul. 18, 1995), the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed Jun. 13, 1996), the examiner’s answer to the reply brief (Paper No. 15, mailed Aug.
08, 1996) and the examiner's letter (Paper No. 17, mailed
Sep. 27, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed Mar. 20, 1996), reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed Jul.
17, 1996) and supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed Sep. 12, 1996) 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.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellant argues that the examiner has not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007