Appeal No. 1998-1942 Page 6
Application No. 08/530,254
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mallinen in view of Kessel and Ermyr as
applied to claims 23 above, and further in view of Logsdon.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed October 17, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed September 2, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed
December 16, 1997) for the appellants' 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.
The indefiniteness rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007