Appeal No. 2000-1952
Application No. 09/006,920
Claims 1-6 and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gururangan in view of Lloyd. Claims 7, 10, 11, and 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gururangan in view of Lloyd
further in view of Turner. Claims 8, 9, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Gururangan in view of Lloyd further in view of
COMMON KNOWLEDGE (see specification at page 3, lines 16-19). Claims 1-6 and
12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of
Lloyd. Claims 1 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Gururangan in view of Heintz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed Feb. 15, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11, filed Dec. 9, 1999) for appellants’
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 articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 USC § 103
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007