Appeal No. 98-2779
Application 08/496,604
November 7, 1996) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed November 12, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
11, filed
August 7, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed
January 16, 1998) for appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Preliminary to treating the examiner’s rejection of the
appealed claims, we note that on page 3 of the brief appellant
has indicated that for purposes of this appeal, “claims 1-13
may be grouped together.” In such an instance, we would
normally select a claim as being representative of the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007