Ex parte BANERJEE et al. - Page 4

                 Appeal No. 1998-0943                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/300,500                                                                                                             

                          Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the                                                                     
                 Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs  and Answer for the             2                                                            
                 respective details thereof.                                                                                                            
                          We have carefully considered the subject matter on                                                                                                                            
                 appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments                                                                         
                 in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation                                                                          
                 and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the                                                                         
                 rejections.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into                                                                                
                 consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments                                                                         
                 set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in                                                                         
                 support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth                                                                          
                 in the Examiner’s Answer.                                                                                                              
                          It is our view, after consideration of the record before                                                                      
                 us, that the disclosure of McCain fully meets the invention as                                                                         
                 recited in claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 11.  We reach the opposite                                                                           
                 conclusion, however, with respect to claims 8 and 10.  We are                                                                          

                          2The Appeal Brief was filed July 21, 1997.  In response                                                                       
                 to the Examiner’s Answer dated October 9, 1997 (remailed                                                                               
                 January 11, 1999), Appellants submitted a Reply Brief on March                                                                         
                 5, 1999 which was entered by the Examiner as indicted in the                                                                           
                 communication dated March 31, 1999.                                                                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007