Appeal No. 1998-3006 Page 4
Application No. 08/586,977
Claims 1 to 4, 7, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Haines.4
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 for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the appellants' 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 reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
3(...continued)
rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
4The rejection of claims 5, 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) was withdrawn by the examiner (answer, pp. 2-4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007