Appeal No. 1998-1969 Page 3
Application No. 08/535,708
Claims 13 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hotaling in view of Crawford.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 9, mailed December 16, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 8, filed October 20, 1997) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Initially we note that the appellant's request that the
Board enter his Rule 116 amendment relates to a petitionable
matter and not to an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we
will not review this issue raised by the appellant on pages
10-11 of the brief.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007