Appeal No. 2000-0652 Page 4
Application No. 08/868,774
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. 17,
mailed December 15, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 16, filed November 26, 1999) and reply brief (Paper
No. 18, filed January 24, 2000) 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, 5 to 7, 9
to 12 and 29 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007