Appeal No. 97-2418 Page 4
Application No. 08/390,843
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 November 27, 1996) and the examiner's response
to the remand by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
(Paper No. 19, mailed April 9, 1998) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 11, filed July 22, 1996) and
reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed January 27, 1997) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, Rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007