Appeal No. 1999-2809
Application No. 08/155,946
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 40, mailed April 27, 1999) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants’ supplemental brief
(Paper No. 39, filed January 25, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No.
42, filed July 1, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,2
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions as set forth by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
none of the examiner's rejections will be sustained. Our
reasoning in support of this determination follows.
2 We note that claims 7 and 8 appear to raise issues under
37 CFR § 1.175(b), since these claims seem to be identical.
Also, we note that the drawings do not show the "pattern of
apertures . . . having . . . no two abutting apertures of
adjacent columns form a horizonal row," as recited in claims 1,
14, 55 and 70. 37 CFR § 1.83(a) requires that the drawings must
show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
During any further prosecution of this application before the
examiner, these issues should be resolved.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007