Appeal No. 2001-1622 Page 4
Application No. 09/226,969
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is
most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Wilson.
Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Wilson.
Claims 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wilson.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed December 1, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 17,
filed October 18, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed
February 5, 2001) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007