Appeal No. 96-0354 Page 4
Application No. 08/099,066
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 15, mailed July 13, 1995) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 14, filed June 1, 1995) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and 4
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
3The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 utilizing Nykopp as the primary reference have
been withdrawn by the examiner (see the Advisory Action (Paper
No. 10, mailed March 14, 1995) and section (4) of the answer).
4The appellants have proposed an additional drawing
(Figure 2) which has been approved by the examiner in the
Advisory Action. In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.74, the
appellants should amend the brief description of the drawings
(specification, p. 4) to refer to Figure 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007