Appeal No. 1999-1767
Application No. 08/706,910
being unpatentable over Apple.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 4, mailed June 11, 1998) and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 8, mailed January 29, 1999) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 7, filed
December 11, 1998) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, this panel of
the Board has given careful consideration to appellant’s
specification and claims, to the applied prior art Apple1
reference, and to the respective positions articulated by
1In considering claims 5 and 6 on appeal, we note that
“said tree securing means” set forth in each of these claims
should actually be --- said leg securing means ---, and that
we have so construed it in considering the issues on appeal.
This error should be corrected during any further prosecution
of the application before the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007