Appeal No. 1999-2030 Page 3
Application No. 08/423,077
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed February 1, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the substitute brief
(Paper No. 14, filed September 21, 1998) for the appellant's
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, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5 to
8, 10 to 13 and 15 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007