Appeal No. 2004-1312 Page 3
Application No. 08/710,554
4. Claim 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nason in view of Doi
and NL 291742 to Inland [illegible] Products Company.
5. Claims 57 to 60, 62 to 65 and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over NL 291742 to Inland [illegible] Products Company in view of Doi and US 5,042,570
to Schmitt-Raiser et al. (Schmitt-Raiser).
6. Claims 66 to 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inland
[illegible] Products Company in view of Doi, Schmitt-Raiser and US 5,743,330 to Bilotta
et al. (Bilotta).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 22, mailed February 26, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 33,
mailed June 3, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 32, filed November 25, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 34,
filed August 4, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007