Appeal No. 2000-1557
Application 08/384,456
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner 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,
the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief 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 the disclosure does not support the invention now
recited in claims 50 and 52. We are also of the view that the
prior art evidence relied upon by the examiner supports the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-15, 17-19, 50 and 52. We reach
the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 20-22.
Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 50 and 52 as
being based on an inadequate disclosure. The examiner finds that
the original specification fails to disclose the error correcting
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007