Appeal No. 1998-1053
Application No. 07/974,832
rejection, and further in view of Talvio or Lebeau.1
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 51, mailed June 26, 1997) and the
supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 54, mailed November
4, 1997) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to appellant's brief (Paper No. 50, filed April 4, 1997) and
reply brief (Paper No. 52, filed August 26, 1997) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
1While the rejection on page 5 of the examiner's answer
included claims 15, 16 and 31, we understand this to be in
error, since on pages 1, 3 and 8 of the answer the examiner
has specifically indicated that claims 15, 16, 31 and 32 "are
allowed" or have been "allowed over the prior art."
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007