Appeal No. 1998-0812 Page 3
Application No. 08/378,954
the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the appellant, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 to 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mares in view of Neumeister, Oishi and
Halkerston.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed October 2, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed June 30, 1997) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.2
OPINION
2 The rejection of claims 1 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 as
being based upon a defective reissue declaration set forth in
the answer was withdrawn by the examiner in the letter mailed
August 4, 2000 (Paper No. 18).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007