Appeal No. 2006-2484 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/837,337
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. In so doing, appellants have not persuaded us of
reversible error on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, we
the top of page 2 of the brief. Also, appellants treat claims 28 and
29 as being among the claims rejected over DeMoss or Smith in the
final rejection. See arguments at page 5 of the appeal brief. On
this record, we regard the examiner’s inadvertent omission of claims
28 and 29 from the statement of rejection in the final office action
as a harmless error that was recognized as such by appellants and
corrected in the answer by the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007