Appeal No. 97-0925 Page 3
Application No. 08/328,159
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rowsey.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
10, mailed April 24, 1996) and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
13, mailed October 21, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 12, filed September 23, 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 reference, 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 enablement issue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007