Appeal No. 1999-1655
Application No. 08/722,904
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Gelatos et al. (Gelatos) 5,391,517 Feb. 21, 1995
Choi 5,670,420 Sep. 23, 1997
(Filed Nov. 8, 1995)
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite in that a word is clearly misspelled in each of the independent claims 1 and 3.
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view
of Gelatos.
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. 11, mailed Dec. 22, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed Oct. 8, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 12, filed Jan. 8, 1999) 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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007