Appeal No. 2003-0040 3
Application No. 09/314,079
(6) claims 13 and 21, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Johnson and Wollar;
(7) claims 14-16 and 22, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Johnson, Wollar and Poupitch;
(8) claim 17, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of Johnson and
Dannhauser;
(9) claims 19 and 20, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Johnson and Gruenwald;
(10) claim 29, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of Johnson,
Wollar and Gruenwald;
(11) claims 33 and 34, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Dannhauser, Wollar and Poupitch; and
(12) claims 35 and 36, rejected as being unpatentable over Papp in view of
Dannhauser, Wollar and Gruenwald.
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 15 and 17)
and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 16) for the respective positions of appellant
and the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
At the outset, appellant “questions whether the Papp patent is analogous art”
(main brief, page 5). In an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007