Appeal No. 2003-0599
Application 09/362,149
claims 26 and 27 are representative of the subject matter on
appeal and a copy of those claims can be found in the Appendix to
appellants’ corrected brief (Paper No. 15).
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
McIlvanie 5,422,764 Jun. 6, 1995
Simmons et al. 5,862,010 Jan. 19, 1999
Miller 6,046,883 Apr. 4, 2000
(filed Dec. 23, 1997)
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter applicants regard as
their invention.
Claims 2, 3, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons in view of McIlvanie.
Claims 4 through 14 and 16 through 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons in view of
McIlvanie as applied above, and further in view of Miller.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary with
regard to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellants and the examiner regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 16, mailed September 11, 2002) for the reasoning in
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007