Appeal No. 1999-2443 Page 3
Application No. 08/857,144
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed March 17, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 20,
filed February 16, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed
May 3, 1999) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants 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 and 6
to 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007