Appeal No. 97-2726 Page 3
Application No. 08/296,393
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.
4, mailed May 21, 1996) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed February 3, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper
No. 10, filed December 26, 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claims 9, 11 and 14
We do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 9, 11
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Quintana.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007