Appeal No. 1998-1786 Page 4
Application No. 08/486,150
November 12, 1997), reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed March 5,
1998) and communication (Paper No. 18, filed February 9, 1999)
for the appellants' 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 the2
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We have selected claim 36 as the representative claim
from the appellants' grouping of claims 36, 38-46, and 67-69
to decide the appeal on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
See page 5 of the appellants' brief. In addition we note that
the appellants have not challenged the rejections of claims
2The following terms used in the claims under appeal lack
proper antecedent basis: the reservoir chamber (claims 36, 38,
40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 67 and 69), the receiving means
(claims 38, 39 and 67), the housing (claims 43, 49, 50 and
68), the second end (claim 48), and the fluid delivery system
(claim 67).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007