Appeal No. 1998-1825
Application No. 08/658,014
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
statement with regard to the above noted rejections and
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 22, mailed January 21, 1997) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 27, mailed December 29, 1997) for
the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
brief (Paper No. 26, filed September 25, 1997) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions as set forth by the appellants and the examiner.
Before addressing the examiner's rejection specifically,
we note that on page 4 of the brief, appellants indicate that
“[c]laims 8, 11 and 12 stand or fall together. Claims 9 and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007