Appeal No. 1999-0422 Page 3
Application No. 08/628,805
Claims 9, 10, 15, 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Serizawa in view of
Hess.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and the examiner with regard to
the merits of this rejection, reference is made to the brief
(Paper No. 15) and reply brief (Paper No. 17) and the answer
(Paper No. 16) for the respective positions of the appellants
and the examiner.
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 the3
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
3We note that "the base" (as distinguished from the "base section") in
claim 9, line 8, as reproduced in the appendix to the brief, lacks clear
antecedent basis in the claim. Although this does not render the scope of the
claim indefinite, this informality is deserving of correction in the event of
further prosecution before the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007