Appeal No. 2002-1035 Page 3
Application No. 09/333,166
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and Gringer.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rosenburg in view of Kruesi and Steiner.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kruesi in view of Rosenburg.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kruesi in view of Rosenburg and Steiner.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper No. 17) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, to the
Eggert declaration (Paper No. 8) and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The written description rejection
The examiner’s basis for rejecting claim 6 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 is that the application as originally filed did not provide written descriptive support
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007