Appeal No. 1999-0313 Page 5
Application No. 08/918,089
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 (Paper No. 21, filed September 4,
1997) 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
In the brief (p. 4), the appellants stated that
Claims 29-43 and 45-48 stand or fall together. Claim 44
stands alone. Claims 49-53 stand or fall together.
5(...continued)
§ 112, ¶1; (2) claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2; and (3)
claims 63 to 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The status (e.g.,
allowed) of claims 63 to 68 (which are not subjected to any
rejection) was not set forth by the examiner in the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007