Appeal No. 1999-1990 Page 3
Application No. 08/635,599
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. 14,
mailed October 27, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed August 3, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
December 29, 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 anticipation issue
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 5 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