Appeal No. 1999-2781
Application No. 08/656,299
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 18, mailed
May 4, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellant’s substitute brief (Paper No. 17,
filed February 8, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 10, 12, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kell (Fig. 11), Fritsche, or Fertier, we first
the examiner and is not to be considered in this appeal. See
Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180 (PO BdApp 1957).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007