Appeal No. 96-0674
Application 08/533,287
The rejection is explained in the Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 10).
The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in
the Brief.
OPINION
To begin with, we note the examiner's references at pages
4 and 5 of the Answer and to appellant's references at pages
4-6 of the Brief to certain patents which were cited during
prosecution of the present application, but not applied in the
final rejection. We also note that the examiner has stated
that no new prior art has been relied on in the rejection
(Answer, page 3). Accordingly, we will limit our
consideration of the standing rejection to the prior art
relied on in the final rejection.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007