Appeal No. 2003-0053
Application No. 09/142,464
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is as follows:
Pennybacker 2,413,579 Dec. 31, 1946
Ogiso et al. (Ogiso ‘074) 5,867,074 Feb. 02, 1999
(Filed Jan. 18, 1996)2
Ogiso et al. (Ogiso ‘075) WO 95-24075 Sep. 08, 1995
Claims 1, 3-7, 14 and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ogiso ‘075 in view of Pennybacker.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 32, mailed Feb. 11, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 31, filed Dec. 31, 2002) and reply
brief (Paper No. 34, filed Apr. 10, 2002) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
2 Appellant references the pagination of Ogiso ‘074 in place of a translation of the Ogiso ‘075
patent which was applied by the examiner. Since appellant does not dispute the use the text of this patent
based upon a national stage application which issued, we will similarly reference this document for
uniformity.
With this decision, we supply a copy of a translation of the Ogiso ‘075 document which was prepared by
FLS, Inc. for the USPTO in Sep. 2002.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007