Appeal No. 98-1922 Page 4
Application No. 08/253,721
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maeda in view of Ewell.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 11, mailed November 28, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants'
substitute brief ("brief") 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 the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation issues
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007