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.
OPINION
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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007