Appeal No. 97-1471
Application 08/229,951
view of Fulwell, Chennell, Smith and Samuel.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the rejection, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed December 18, 1996) for the reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 13, filed September 5, 1996) and reply
brief (Paper No. 15, filed February 24, 1997) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellant’s
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner’s above-noted rejection will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007