Appeal No. 1997-1081 Page 3
Application No. 08/111,922
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
13, mailed August 21, 1995) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 20, mailed September 12, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants'
brief (Paper No. 18½, filed April 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 4
claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we make the determinations which follow.
4The appellants filed a substitute specification on
August 29, 1994. It does not appear from the record that the
entry or nonentry of this substitute specification has been
communicated to the appellants. Page 1 of the substitute
specification contains a clerical marking of NE (i.e., not
entered). Accordingly, we will rely on the original
specification in deciding the issues raised in this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007