Appeal No. 1999-1523 Page 3
Application No. 08/839,065
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. 12, mailed January 4, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 10, filed November 30, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed March 8, 1999) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Claim 1
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007