Appeal No. 2000-0027 Page 4
Application No. 09/072,190
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 5, mailed November 2, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed May 4, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10,
filed April 2, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed July
6, 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.
The indefiniteness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 12 to 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007