Appeal No. 1999-0843
Application No. 08/666,970
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the4
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Briefs 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 of Appellant’s admitted prior art fully meets
the invention as recited in claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 12-16. We5
4The Appeal Brief (Paper No. 12) was filed March 9, 1998. In response
to the Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 13) dated March 31, 1998, a Reply Brief
(Paper No. 15) was filed June 2, 1998, which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner without further comment as indicated in the communication (Paper
No. 16) dated August 18, 1998.
5While we do not consider paragraph (f) of 35 U.S.C. § 102 to be the
appropriate basis for the anticipatory rejection in the present factual
situation, the rejection qualifies under other paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007