Appeal No. 2000-0289 Page 4
Application No. 08/753,542
Claims 11 to 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Caneavri or Griffin in view of Harvey.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 10, mailed July 10, 1998) and the answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed May 10, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 14,
filed February 22, 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 indefiniteness rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007