Appeal No. 1999-2458 Page 3
Application No. 08/851,693
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 6, mailed July 31, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 10,
mailed March 24, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9, 1
filed January 8, 1999) 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 references, 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 4 and 6
to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Huang.
1The brief was submitted on legal size paper (i.e., 8½ by
14 inches). We note that 37 CFR § 1.52(b) does not permit the
submission of a brief on legal size paper.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007