Appeal No. 98-2837
Application 08/471,458
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the rejection, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 27, mailed March 12, 1998) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 23, filed January 12, 1998)
and reply brief (Paper No. 28, filed April 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 additional evidence and product analysis report supplied by appellant,
and to the respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s rejection will not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
After reviewing the original disclosure, the examiner’s position, the substantial evidence
submitted by appellant in this case, and appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief, we are of the
opinion that the examiner’s rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is clearly not
sustainable. Appellant has set forth in the specification (e.g., page 5) that the claimed method of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007