Appeal No. 97-1176
Application 08/003,673
No. 29, page 2)).2
The full text of the examiner’s rejections and response to
the argument presented by appellants appears in the answer (Paper
No. 32), while the complete statement of appellants’ argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 31).
OPINION
Having carefully considered the content of the claims on
appeal, the teachings of the applied references and the
respective viewpoints advanced by appellants and the examiner, we
shall not sustain either of the examiner’s rejections. Our
reasons follow.
Initially, we make note of the following claim language
interpretation. Consistent with the application disclosure, we
understand the recitation in the last paragraph of independent
claim 15 of
said angularly and vertically spaced openings through
said side wall being sufficiently small so that, in
use, the contact between the water and the said body of
water-erodible water-treatment composition by virtue of
2Although the examiner’s answer cites only Spence and Ekins
in the evidentiary basis of the rejection, it is clear from the
record as a whole that, as with the previous appeal, both the
examiner and appellants consider that the Bachman and Hicks
references are relied upon in a secondary capacity to teach
certain features of the dependent claims. In this regard, see
page 2 of the office action mailed August 17, 1995, pages 2 and 8
of the brief, and pages 4 and 6 of the examiner’s answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007