Appeal No. 98-1936
Application 08/316,933
Claims 1 through 11 and 21 through 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wiesner.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the
above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the
examiner and appellants regarding the rejection, we make
reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed November
12, 1996) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed
December 23, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed
November 20, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed
February 17, 1998) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination
which follows.
An anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is established
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007