Appeal No. 1998-3296 Page 4
Application No. 08/681,857
(2) Claim 2 as being unpatentable over Raeder in view of
Harmony and Eder; and
(3) Claims 2, 5 through 8, 11 and 12 as being unpatentable
over Stevens in view of Raeder.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 15, mailed May 28, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 14, filed April 27, 1998) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.3
OPINION
Initially we note that the issues (G), (H) and (I) as set
forth and argued on pages 5 and 8-10 of the appellant's brief
relate to petitionable matters and not to appealable matters.
3Since the other ground of rejection (i.e., the rejection
of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph) set forth
in the final rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed October 20, 1997)
was not set forth in the examiner's answer we assume that this
other ground of rejection has been withdrawn by the examiner.
See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007