Appeal No. 1997-0153
Application No. 08/375,681
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed August 6, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 9,
filed July 5, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed
October 8, 1996) 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.
In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), we have selected
claim 1 as the representative claim from the appellants'
grouping of claims 1-4 and 6-16 (brief, page 2) to decide the
appeal on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007