Appeal No. 1998-1782 Page 4
Application No. 08/472,332
Claims 1 through 14 and 19 through 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Eskilson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 12, mailed August 28, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 11, filed July 23, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed October 28, 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. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007