Appeal No. 1998-1772 Page 4
Application No. 08/578,047
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
new ground of rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed October 9, 1997) and the
examiner's communication (Paper No. 19, mailed December 18,
1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
new ground of rejection, and to the appellant's reply brief
(Paper No. 17, filed December 9, 1997) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
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
is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
4(...continued)
the final rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed February 20, 1997)
were not set forth in the examiner's answer we assume that
these grounds of rejection have been withdrawn by the
examiner. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App.
1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007