Appeal No. 1999-1719 Page 3
Application No. 08/787,700
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 11, mailed February 1, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 10, filed November 16, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 12, filed April 2, 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 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.2 For the reasons which follow,
we have determined the examiner's rejection is not
sustainable.
2 It appears that claim 4 would read more clearly if the phrase "said bridge
member is in said upper window jamb section and contains" were amended to read
-- said bridge member of said upper window jamb section contains --. This
amendment would clarify that the recitation of "said bridge member" in claim 4
relies on the upper window jamb section bridge member of claim 3 for an
antecedent basis. This matter should be addressed by the appellant and/or the
examiner during any further prosecution.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007