Appeal No. 1998-3405
Application No. 08/378,745
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. 14, mailed Jan. 22, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed Dec. 15, 1997) and reply
brief (Paper No. 15, filed Mar. 27, 1998) 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 reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner maintains that claims 57-88 are directed to the same invention as
recited in claims 1-56 of the patent. (See answer at page 4.) We disagree with the
examiner. We agree with the examiner that the claims at issue are remarkably similar
to those claimed in the patent, but they may or may not be of the exact same scope as
recited in the patent. While the examiner maintains that the claims are the same, the
examiner has provided no interpretation of the scope of claims in the patent or in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007