Appeal No. 1997-3267
Application 08/324,386
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 22, mailed
January 30, 1996) and the examiner's supplemental answer
(Paper No. 31, mailed August 6, 1996) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper
No. 21, filed January 11, 1996), and reply briefs (Paper No. 23,
filed March 21, 1996 and Paper No. 30 filed July 26, 1996) for
the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Preliminary to treating the examiner’s rejections of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007