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
U.S.C.
§ 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
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007