Appeal No. 2000-2188 Page 4
Application No. 09/063,050
been withdrawn by the Examiner. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180,
181 (Bd. App. 1957).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the Examiner and Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed June 6,
2000) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning, the appeal brief
(Paper No. 12, filed March 31, 2000) and the reply brief (Paper
No. 14, filed August 7, 2000) for Appellants’ 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 reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by Appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of
a careful review of the evidence before us, we disagree with the
Examiner that claims 7 and 8 are properly rejected under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. However, it is our view
that the admitted prior art anticipates the subject matter of
claims 1 and 4. We are also of the view that the admitted prior
art and Gazda would have not suggested the subject matter of
claims 2, 3 and 5 through 10. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007