Appeal No. 97-1143
Application 08/115,881
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the Office action mailed
December 7, 1995 (Paper No. 11) and to the answer (Paper No.
14) for the complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to
the main brief (Paper No. 13) and reply brief (Paper No. 15)
for the 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 deter-
minations which follow.
Rejection (1)
examiner's answer. However, the examiner's answer indicates (page 2) that
claims 1 through 11 stand rejected. Therefore, we have included the rejection
of claim 11, as stated in the Office action mailed December 7, 1995, in the
list of rejections before us for review.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007