Appeal No. 1999-0718
Application 08/594,149
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the rejec-
tions, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
13, mailed October 1, 1998) for the reasoning in support of
the rejections and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12, filed
July 10, 1998) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, this panel
of the Board has given careful consideration to appellant’s
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references,
and to the respective positions articulated by appellant and
the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we find that we
must reverse the examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 6
on appeal under both 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103 because we
are unable to clearly understand the claimed subject matter
due to language which we find renders appellant’s claims
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007