Appeal No. 1999-2433
Application No. 08/862,361
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 26, mailed March 24, 1999) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper
No. 25, filed December 14, 1998) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Before addressing the examiner's rejections based on
prior art, it is essential that the claimed subject matter be
fully understood. Accordingly, we initially direct our
attention to appellants’ independent claim 37 on appeal in an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007