Appeal No. 2002-2024
Application No. 09/197,404
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary with
regard to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
22, mailed January 30, 2002) for the reasoning in support of the
rejections2, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 20, filed
December 6, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 23, filed April 10,
2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
2 While the examiner's answer (page 11) appears to make note
of an appeal conference being held, we observe that the conferees
have not initialed next to the typed indication of the conferees
initials in the examiner's answer as required in MPEP § 1208,
which indicates that the typed or printed names of the conferees
should appear on the answer below the primary examiner's
signature and that the conferees "must place their initials next
to their name."
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007