Appeal No. 2003-1981 Page 3
Application No. 09/715,684
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,559,7351 to Batick, Jr. (Batick).
Claims 1 and 7 to 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by U.S. Patent No. 6,016,6212 to Maeda.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 15, mailed May 14, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 14, filed March 27, 2003) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
1 Issued December 24, 1985.
2 Issued January 25, 2000.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007