Appeal No. 1999-1530 Page 3
Application No. 08/728,607
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19,
mailed December 7, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 18,
filed October 27, 1998) 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
4(...continued)
body of the rejection that the rejection applies only to
claims 1-3, 8-19 and 21 (claim 20 being a claim that has been
indicated as being allowed).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007