Appeal No. 2000-1314 Page 4
Application No. 09/109,279
Claims 10 to 12, 18 and 22 to 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the species shown
in Figures 1-10 and 12 because of the appellant's admission
that they are not patentable over those species.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed November 19, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 10, filed October 5, 1999) and reply brief (Paper 2
No. 13, filed January 14, 2000) 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
2The declaration of Charles Gutentag (Paper No. 12, filed
January 14, 2000) was not entered by the examiner (see Paper
No. 15, mailed February 10, 2000) and has not been considered
by this panel of the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007