Appeal No. 2001-2543
Application No. 09/225,892
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed January
17, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 15, filed
November 1, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed April 23,
2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of the claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. After reviewing
appellants' specification and the language focused on by the
examiner in claims 1 and 21 in light thereof, and also in light
of appellants' arguments in their brief and reply brief, it is
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007