Appeal No. 1999-1405
Application 08/098,268
(2) applicants' Appeal Brief (Paper No. 28)1;
(3) the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 29); and
(4) the above-listed prior art references.
DISPOSITION
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we affirm
each of the examiner's prior art rejections. Having reviewed each rejection in light of the
argument presented in applicants' Brief, we agree that the subject matter sought to be
patented in claims 58 through 84 and 86 through 94 would have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the cited prior art. We agree with the position
ably and thoroughly set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 29), including the
statement of rejections and the response to applicants' argument on appeal.
Accordingly, we adopt that position as our own, and we find it unnecessary to belabor
the record with further comment.
The examiner's decision, rejecting claims 58 through 84 and 86 through 94, is
affirmed.
1 As stated in 37 CFR § 1.192(a)(1998), the Appeal Brief "must set forth the authorities and arguments on
which appellant will rely to maintain the appeal. Any arguments or authorities not included in the Brief will
be refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, unless good cause is
shown." We have carefully considered the arguments and authorities set forth in applicants' Brief (Paper
No. 28). We have not, however, combed the record to "pull out" arguments and authorities presented on
applicants' behalf in response to previously entered Office actions. We have declined applicants'
invitation, in the Appeal Brief, to consider arguments presented in papers filed March 19, 1996; December
24, 1996; and January 16, 1998.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007