Appeal No. 1999-1535 Page 4
Application No. 08/752,220
Claims 19 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Horning in view of Ellingsen and
Statz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 10,
mailed October 2, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9,
filed August 31, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed
December 7, 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.
The indefiniteness issue
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007