Appeal No. 97-2555Application No. 08/215,062 Page 3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
7, mailed July 7, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed June 25, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper
No. 14, filed March 7, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed
August 22, 1996) 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 indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4 to 16 and 19
to 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner's complete statement (final rejection, p. 3) of
the reasons for this rejection is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007