Appeal No. 1998-0408
Application No. 08/176,861
(3) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Melin in view of Hansen and Ohno.
(4) Claims 10, 11, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Melin in view of
Hansen and Twentier.
Reference is made to the brief, first reply brief and
second reply brief (Paper Nos. 9, 12 and 18) and the answer
and supplemental answer2 (Paper Nos. 11 and 17) for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
2 The paper entitled "EXAMINER'S ANSWER" mailed August 17, 1999, is in
fact, a supplemental answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007