Appeal No. 97-3555 Page 4
Application No. 08/534,692
Claims 11 through 28 and 30 through 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cannell in view of
Baraban, Schlaupitz and Edwards.
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.
10, mailed January 27, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 9, filed November 4, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 11, filed February 28, 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 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.
The indefiniteness issue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007