Appeal No. 98-3292
Application 08/611,848
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking first at the examiner's rejection of claims 19
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we note that
appellants have not disputed the examiner’s position, but have
merely attempted to cancel claim 19 and 20 by the amendment
after final filed May 1, 1997 (Paper No. 7), which amendment
was refused entry be the examiner (see Paper No. 8). Thus,
since appellants have not taken issue with the examiner’s
position regarding claims 19 and 20, we are compelled to
summarily sustain this rejection.
Before turning to the examiner’s rejections based on
prior art, we note that it is an essential prerequisite that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007