Appeal No. 2001-0472 Page 3
Application No. 09/153,951
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 10,
mailed September 25, 2000) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 9, filed September 18, 2000) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The written description rejection
We sustain the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007