Appeal No. 1996-1699
Application No. 08/077,681
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.
8, mailed October 5, 1994) and the answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed September 12, 1995) for the examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the main and
reply briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 17, filed July 5, 1995 and
November 13, 1995 respectively) 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. Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it
is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007