Appeal No. 2000-1187 Page 4
Application No. 08/723,174
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 12, mailed
June 21, 1999) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support
of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed March 8,
1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed July 23, 1999) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
At the outset, we note that the appellants consider claims
1, 6, 11, 16 and 172 as one group and claims 5, 10 and 15 as
another group (brief, p. 3). The appellants further provide
separate arguments for each group (brief, p. 4). Therefore, we
will consider the claims as two groups and will treat claims 1
and 5 as the representative claims of their corresponding groups.
2 Claims 2 through 4, 7 through 9 and 12 through 14 were
originally included in the group before the rejection of these
claims was withdrawn in the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007