Appeal No. 1997-3282
Application No. 08/189,314
and Patterson.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's explanation 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 final rejection (Paper No.
11, mailed December 22, 1995) and answer (Paper No. 17, mailed
January 16, 1997) for the reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to
appellant's brief (Paper No. 16, filed October 7, 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 the appellant and by the examiner.
As a consequence of this review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007