Appeal No. 1999-2094 Page 4
Application No. 08/517,198
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 37,
mailed February 16, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper
No. 36, filed November 13, 1998) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Initially we note that the issue of whether the final
rejection was improper relates to a petitionable matter and
not to an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we will not
review the issue raised by the appellant on pages 13-14 of the
brief.
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. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007