Appeal No. 2001-0476
Application No. 08/768,231
on appeal and remand the application in view of the following.1
Further, after a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 46 through 53 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. It is also
noted that claims 9 through 12, 17 through 19 and 25 have been
indicated as allowable by the Examiner while claims 2, 4, 8, 20
and 26 have been canceled.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the2
respective details thereof.
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Moon et al. (Moon) 4,669,004 May 26, 1987
Blagaila et al. (Blagaila) 5,526,202 Jun. 11, 1996
Smith 5,608,587 Mar. 4, 1997
(filed Mar. 20, 1995)
Cowen 5,760,983 Jun. 2, 1998
(filed May 31, 1999)
1The term "vacate" as applied to an action taken by an
appellate tribunal, means to set aside or to void. Blacks Law
Dictionary, 1075 (abridged 6 ed. 1991). When the Board vacatesth
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007