Appeal No. 1997-3916
Application No. 08/429,650
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper No.19, filed November 29,
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.
Appellants submit (brief, page 7) that “[f]or each of the grounds of rejection contested by appellant
[sic: appellants] in this appeal, claims 25-30 may be treated as a group. Claim 25, the sole independent
claim pending, may be taken as representative for the issues on appeal.” 3
Turning first to the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, we note at the
outset that the examiner’s statement of the rejection (final rejection, page 2), referred to by the examiner in
the answer (page 3), is inconsistent with the claim language presently before us on appeal, as claim 25 was
amended subsequent to the final rejection (amendment filed July 1, 1996). However, as the examiner has
presented arguments commensurate with the language of appealed claim 25 in the remarks section of the
answer, we will construe the examiner’s remarks (answer, pages 4 and 5) as both the examiner’s
statement of the rejection as well as the examiner’s response to appellants’ arguments in the brief. The
3 We note that the arguments found in the brief are limited to claim 25.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007