Appeal No. 2000-0260
Application No. 08/675,865
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of
the rejections and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the prior art
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ 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 Appellant’s specification in this application describes the
claimed invention in a manner which complies with the requirements
1 The original Appeal Brief was filed August 5, 1998 (Paper no. 15). In
response to the original Examiner’s Answer dated December 31, 1998 (Paper No.
16), a Reply Brief was filed February 23, 1999 (Paper No. 17), which was
acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication
dated May 25, 1999 (Paper No. 18). In response to a Notification of Non-
compliance, issued by the Examiner as a result of a remand from the Board, a
revised Appeal Brief was filed November 21, 2001 (Paper No. 21), and a further
Examiner’s Answer was submitted dated February 27, 2002 (Paper No. 23). Our
references in this decision are to the latest filed Brief (Paper No. 21) and
Answer (Paper No. 23).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007