Appeal No. 96-4144 Page 3
Application No. 08/169,019
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
7, mailed January 17, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's
answer (Paper No. 9, mailed June 11, 1996) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellant's brief (Paper No. 6, filed October 10, 1995) and reply
brief (Paper No. 8, filed March 18, 1996) 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 indefiniteness issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as being indefinite for failing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007