Appeal No. 1998-0693
Application No. 08/387,583
Claims 1-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art in view of Nicholson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 15, mailed Oct. 15, 1997), which incorporates the text of the rejection
from a prior Office action (Paper No. 6, mailed Aug. 20, 1996) and the supplemental
examiner's answer or letter clarifying the basis of the rejection (Paper No. 19, mailed Oct.
23, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 14, filed Sep. 11, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed Dec. 22,
1997) 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 claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that the objection to the drawings goes beyond the authority
of the Board, therefore, we make no findings thereto. (See brief at page 5-7.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007