Appeal No. 1997-3328
Application No. 08/226,605
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14, mailed September 30, 1996) and the supplemental
examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed March 18, 1997) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 13, filed
July 3, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed December 2,
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), and consistent
with appellants' grouping of the claims (brief, page 3), we
have selected claim 19 (the independent method claim) as
7) entry of which was indicated by the examiner in the communicated dated
March 28, 1996 (Paper No. 10).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007