Ex parte HURST et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1998-2556                                                        
          Application 08/571,044                                                      

          appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the                     
          evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the                 
          examiner as support for the prior art rejections.  We have,                 
          likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching                
          our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief              
          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 claims 10 and 11 are not in compliance with 35              
           112.  We are also of the view that the prior art relied upon              
          by the examiner does not support any of the prior art                       
          rejections.  Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.                                
          We consider first the rejection of claims 10 and 11                         
          under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.  112.  The rejection               
          states that there is no clear antecedent basis for the phrase               
          “said coring function” in these claims.  We note that                       
          appellants have not responded to this rejection.  Since we                  
          agree with the examiner that there is no antecedent basis for               
          the phrase “said coring function,” and since appellants have                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007