Appeal No. 2000-0323 Page 4
Application No. 08/608,920
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the appellant,
at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention.
Claims 1 to 6, 8 to 11 and 14 to 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ruggio.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ruggio in view of Lee.
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. 11, mailed January 23, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed December 7, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 14,
filed July 23, 1998) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007