Appeal No. 1999-2065
Application 08/651,502
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
statement with regard to the above-noted rejections and
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s
answer (Paper No. 55, mailed February 1, 1999) and the office
actions of Paper Nos. 38 and 47 (mailed January 22, 1996 and
December 23, 1997, respectively) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 54,
filed December 18, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 56, filed
March 31, 1999) 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 as set forth by the appellants and the
examiner. As a conse- quence of our review, we have made the
determination that neither of the examiner’s rejections will
be sustained. Our reasoning in support of this determination
follows.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007