Appeal No. 2002-1056
Application No. 08/772,888
respect to claims 19 and 30, and Birk in view of Sarbadhikari
with respect to claim 37.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Birk reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 22-25, 27-29, 33, 35,
and 36. With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we
1 The Appeal Brief was filed August 14, 2000 (Paper no. 25). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated October 25, 2000 (Paper No. 26), a
Reply Brief was filed December 28, 2000 (Paper No. 27), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated March 14,
2001 (Paper No. 28).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007