Appeal No. 2004-1750
Application No. 09/985,937
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary
with respect to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 17, mailed October 30, 2003) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
16, filed September 29, 2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, to the declaration of Mr.
Thomas J. Nosker filed May 29, 2003 (Paper No. 11), and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 24 and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Garber, for
the reasons aptly set forth by appellants in their brief (pages
3-5), we agree that Garber does not identically disclose each and
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007