Appeal No. 2002-0296 Page 3
Application No. 09/248,553
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sersiron in view of DeLaquil.
Claims 4 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sersiron in view of DeLaquil as applied to claims 1 and 3, and further in view of Lucier.
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Leopold in view of DeLaquil.
Claims 4 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Leopold in view of DeLaquil as applied to claims 1 and 3, and further in view of Lucier.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed April 5, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10, filed January 29, 2001) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007