Ex parte KENDRICK - Page 7

                 Appeal No. 1999-2064                                                                                     Page 7                        
                 Application No. 08/619,853                                                                                                             

                 patentable invention" as the claims under appeal is set forth                                                                          
                 in the rejection section of the answer.                                                                                                

                          10. The file record of this application indicates that                                                                        
                 the appellant filed a reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed April                                                                           
                 17, 2000) responding to the examiner's answer of April 13,                                                                             

                          In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                                                                        
                 careful consideration to the appellant's specification and                                                                             
                 claims, to the applied reference, and to the respective                                                                                
                 positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.   As                                                                          
                 a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which                                                                          

                 35 U.S.C.  103 Rejection based upon Mowry being prior art                                                                             
                 under 35 U.S.C.  102(g)3                                                                                                              

                          3The appellant has not disputed the examiner's reliance                                                                       
                 on claim 12 of Mowry being available as prior art under 35                                                                             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007