Appeal No. 2002-2148 Page 3
Application No. 09/627,143
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Mannava in view of Prevey and Sue.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed October 29, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 14, mailed
April 23, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the brief1 (Paper No. 13, filed March 18, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
June 14, 2002) 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, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
1 In our view, the appellants' statement in the brief (p. 1) that "[t]he real party in interest is the
assignee of record" fails to comply with the requirement of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(1) to identify (i.e., name) the
real party in interest when the party named in the caption of the brief is not the real party in interest.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007