Appeal No. 1999-0286 Page 4
Application No. 08/777,413
(2) Claim 13 as being unpatentable over Holcomb in view of
Wiese, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Lofstedt;
and
(3) Claims 1, 4 to 6 and 9 to 19 as being unpatentable over
Hendricks in view of Wiese.
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. 10, mailed July 20, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 9, filed April 30, 1998) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Initially we note that the drawing objection set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed November 25, 1997)
relates to a petitionable matter and not to an appealable
matter. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§
1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we will not review the issue
raised by the appellant on pages 4-8 of the brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007