Appeal No. 1997-3798 Page 3
Application No. 08/272,018
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Eriksson in view of Leppanen.
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. 26,
mailed May 2, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 25,
filed February 10, 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 written description rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007