Appeal No. 2002-0605 Page 3
Application No. 09/096,542
Claims 9 and 14 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Snaith in view of Hochstein and Eshelman.
Claims 5 to 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Eshelman in view of Hochstein.
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 August 3, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed June 14, 2001) and reply
brief (Paper No. 13, filed October 9, 2001) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, to the
appellant's declaration under 37 CFR § 1.1321 (filed October 9, 2001 with the reply
brief) and to the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.
Upon evaluation of all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence
1 This declaration was entered and considered by the examiner. See Paper No. 16, mailed
February 8, 2002.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007