Appeal No. 1999-2103
Application No. 08/734,205
Reference is made to the brief and reply brief (Paper
Nos. 17 and 23) and the answer (Paper No. 19) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, 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 anticipation rejection
As noted above, the examiner's rejection of claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is based upon the Swiss Studer
reference, not the French Studer reference. Nevertheless, in
that a comparison of the attached translation of the Swiss
reference with the translation of the French reference
supplied by appellants confirms that the disclosures (with the
exception of the claims) are the same, for appellants'
convenience, we shall refer to the translation of the French
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007