Appeal No. 2000-1743
Application No. 09/314,618
November 22, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 10, filed
January 27, 2000) 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 reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a 3
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking at pages 3, 4 and 6 of the brief, we note that
appellant has indicated with regard to the rejections based on
3The record indicates that appellant filed new drawings
(Figs. 1A-1D) on August 9, 1999 as an attachment to Paper No.
4. However, no such drawings are to be found in the file.
Appellant and the examiner should resolve this problem during
any further prosecution of the application. As a further
point, we note that the examiner (in Paper No. 6) indicates
that the new drawings were not approved, however, the examiner
approved amendments to the specification contained in Paper
No. 4 which specifically relate to new drawing Figures 1A-1D,
thus creating an inconsistency between the specification and
the single drawing figure originally filed with the
application.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007