Appeal No. 2001-0846 Page 4
Application No. 08/797,960
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. 24,
mailed October 12, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the substitute brief
(Paper No. 23, filed September 8, 2000) 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 anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 15, 17, 18,
21, 23, 24, 29 to 33 and 35 to 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007