Appeal No. 2001-2338
Application 08/996,360
rejection of the method claims as well.” In this regard, we are
wholly in agreement with appellant’s arguments as set forth in
the brief (pages 12-16) and reply brief (pages 3-7). We also
note the examiner’s apparent failure to treat or otherwise
comment on the declaration filed by appellant on September 15,
2000 (Paper No. 22), even in the face of a specific argument in
appellant’s brief (page 22) pointing this oversight out to the
examiner.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that the
examiner’s rejection of claims 23 through 26, 28 through 31 and
33 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Zapf in view of Geraci and the examiner’s separate rejection of
claims 23 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zapf in view of Geraci will both not be
sustained.
Turning now to the examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zapf in view
of Geraci as applied above, and further in view of Lofty, and the
examiner’s rejection of claims 33 through 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zapf in view of Coates and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007