Appeal No. 1998-0908
Application No. 08/506,292
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 15) and
Answer (Paper No. 16) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation and
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the prior
art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure in this application describes the claimed
invention in a manner which complies with the requirements of the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that
the disclosures of King '241 or King '405 do not fully meet the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007