Appeal No. 1998-1357
Application No. 08/348,744
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 57, mailed September 3, 1997) and the supplemental
examiner's answer (Paper No. 59, mailed November 12, 1997) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 56, filed
May 22, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 58, filed November 3,
1997) for the 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.
Initially, we turn our attention to the examiner's
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007