Appeal No. 2002-0707 3
Application No. 09/093,574
Stucky et al. 5,169,566 Dec. 08, 1992
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 7 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stucky.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Stucky in view of Markowitz.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Stucky in view of Saha.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Stucky in view of Saha and Gaffney.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejection of the claims under §103(a)
is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse each of these rejections for the reasons
discussed herein.
The Rejection under § 103(a) over Stucky
It is the examiner’s position that,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007