Appeal No. 2005-0664 Page 2
Application No. 09/840,278
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Daneshvar 5,351,818 Oct. 4, 1994
Takama 5,553,710 Sep. 10, 1996
Spencer et al. (Spencer) 5,593,058 Jan. 14, 1997
Petruzzi 5,699,925 Dec. 23, 1997
Ratcliff 6,065,595 May 23, 2000
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 2-7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Daneshvar in view of Ratcliff.
Claims 6-8, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Daneshvar in view of Ratcliff and Takama.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Daneshvar in view of Ratcliff and Petruzzi.
Claims 10, 11 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Takama in view of Spencer and Daneshvar.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Takama in view of Spencer and Daneshvar and further in view of Ratcliff.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ratcliff.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed November 17, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007