Appeal No. 1999-1785
Application No. 08/512,656
brief (Paper No. 15, filed June 2, 1998) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the2
determinations which follow.
Initially, we observe that the brief contains arguments
2Our review of the application file reveals that the
specification, claims and drawings are replete with errors,
too numerous to list in total. Examples of such errors are:
(1) Claim 1 contains improper capital letters in lines 3, 4
and 6, (2) on page 5, line 10 --with-- is misspelled, (3) the
description of Figures 6 and 6A found on page 7 of the
specification refers to reference numerals 46 and 57, however,
these reference numerals are not shown on the appropriate
drawing figures, (4) reference numerals 49 and 49A shown at
the top of Figure 6 appear to be inappropriately placed, (5)
Figure 5C has reference numerals that do not match those found
in the description of the figure at the bottom of page 8 in
the specification, etc. These issues should be addressed by
the examiner and the appellant upon further prosecution of the
application.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007