Appeal No. 97-0734 Page 3
Application No. 08/058,592
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. 21, mailed June 18, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 20, filed February 26, 1996) and reply brief
(Paper No. 22, 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 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.
Initially we note that the examiner's objection to the
drawings (final rejection , p. 2) relates to a petitionable2
2Paper No. 8, mailed October 3, 1994.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007